ry 
Sere 


rs 


Eradadieeies 
plow opera ear y 


Sarre 


roe ed 


ty i 
Neate 
Si es & 


ress 


Pea 
ark: f ater bet chet opt atahgh og its 
SERCH 
ipprhaehewes ese ntreaceat eet ‘ 
“ 


3 Seika 


aoe oy 


are te 
th 


oats 


tet ated 


ty * 
beth 


i 


tke 
ey 
Taeanenes 


ote ie 

»y s y me OS 4 eet 
Re ptaea Sp ybe ey ba areas 

att i mn it pester SBE 


ratte 


etree ater 


netybacs 
ares 

are: 

, wets 


n 


in 


ttt 


ae 
2 


ae seetetes 


Pe) 
ce 


Seeniais 
sitet 


eels 
tro te 


( 
Arh eeeraganns 

xh ae) rete 
revere? r 


rrhetets 


= eth 
4° 

bhi 
£3} 
Wn 


ai Bete! 
ai 


AS! SL 
uh 
byrtee 


reeks 
apa obese ia 


es if 
fitkmins ti Me nate 
ae! Hoeiek has nie 


OTSA ae 
; ort tyes 
Chenprten ss eal 
Le ack 


ehyt * 
Aah 
shies sure te Prptente ES 
Seiten atest 


2 
‘=. 


eh stoe cot ee pe 3 


TS 
re 


toe set) 


Coy hae) 
tata he ety rere 
rererke te 
Rceeivesy Ween 
repethhs 


. i 
er: nt 
phe : Ot 


eet vist 
bietptate 


Hus 
“a 


i 


ee 





Ae ee A a 
es NL re ah) chy Hs 
whe a at ee a i 

. yee 
’ OE ik hi Pe ob 

= ry wy 





PBIot261 K4 1926". °° 2 on 
Keyser, 


Leander Sylvester, 
1856- 





A manual of Christian ethic 








: eet 
5. ¢ 
: 7h) >. he 
4 Uva, oe 
eye . 
eis 
* 





4. 
J 


a ae 
ow 


a Oe 





PTTITTTTTTIITT TTT TT TTT UU TT UPTO CCCLU CCU TU ATLL UCU TUUUU CUCU OTOL LULL LTCOLLO DECC CCLLLCLLLLCLLLCLCUCLCCCCCOOOOCCCCCCCCLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLELLLLLLLLLLCLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLELLLLLLLLLL LLL 





DONA EUU DEAT UPAR EAE ee CLE 8 Pol 


, 
“OL ogi¢ 


A MANUAL OF 
CHRISTIAN ETHICS 


By, 
LEANDER S. VKEYSER D. D. 


Professor of Systematic Theology 
in Hamma Divinity School, Wittenberg College, 
Springfield, Ohio 


Author of 


“A System of Christian Evidence,” “A System of General 
Ethics,” “The Problem of Origins,” “Man’s 
First Disobedience,” etc. 


1926 


THE LUTHERAN LITERARY BOARD 
BURLINGTON, IOWA 


Hee 


ry 


pimveavnncnnunuananaiia 


AUIUNS0 00944440004 044 04000000 000N0NNEOUTONOOOOOOOOOOOOOUOONOOOOOOOOOOOSOOVOQOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOQOQOQOQOOOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUOOOOOOOOOOOOOUOOOOOUOQUOOUOOOOOOOOOOUUCOUOUUOUOUAQOOTOOAUOUOUOUUGOAURECLEEOEAEEEOECTETV TEENA TATTERED 


Z 

1 Wee 
ANS 

> 





i Yen { [ | 
3 | Copyright, 1926 
By R. NEUMANN 
: ; Burlington, Iowa 
| . 
-_ a ” | 
tr | ‘ 
. re i | 
ee ‘ | : ; | 
gard | : ht ee ’ 
‘ te ‘ . 
ied oN Pv 


THE FOREWORD 


Primarily intended as a textbook for Christian colleges, 
seminaries and other schools, this manual may also be used 
by the general reader. Some technical terms have had to 
be employed, but usually they occur in such contexts as to 
be readily understood. 


Both the publisher and the author felt that it would be 
better to issue a manual rather than an extended treatise. 
This fact will account for the brevity with which many sub- 
jects are treated. It is believed, however, that a textbook 
which is suggestive is better than one that aims to be ex- 
haustive, as the former method gives opportunity for the 
instructor and his students to develop the various topics for 
themselves and engage in class discussions. 


The author believes that the same general outline can be 
used for unfolding systems of both Natural Ethics and 
Christian Ethics. The Christian system is true and rational, 
and hence no general scheme can be fundamental which 
does not agree with the teaching of the Christian Scriptures. 

The author knows of no other ethical system that is built 
up on the plan here employed; yet it will be seen that the 
Christian World-view, which is, of course, truly theistic, 
lends itself readily to the working out of a methodology 
that is fundamental and that gives proper and proportionate 
place to all the numerous data of morality. 

In Christian Ethics moral distinctions must be clearly 
drawn; they must in nowise be blurred. It is hoped that 
this book will prove that Christian morality is as stalwart 
and upstanding as it is gentle and gracious. 


Springfield, Ohio, I Shee Ace 
July 23, 1926. 


GENERAL OUTLINE 


PARTI 
THEORETICAL ETHICS 


_ THE ETHICAL INTRODUCTION 


eee tg ee ELON los oo) ee 
. THE ETHICAL LAW 


) THEA ER TEIGALAA NEBR Si 


i THES ETHICAL sR ESTORASIGN 


PAR DLE 
PRACTICAL ETHICS 


. INTRODUCTORY DATA 


. MAN'S! COLE RSD rS 


1. Duties to God 

2. Duties to Nature 

3. Duties to Oneself 

4. Duties to One’s Fellowmen 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


PART I 
THEORETICAL ETHICS 


DIVISION I 
THE ETHICAL INTRODUCTION 

Page 

CHAPEER TI 
ee EGE LEED roseein edocs ace loe Ea ale SN Ula OS Gh on a Soe se 9 
Pie Le Ni AcING ce rer DD EGR LVAD EO) Ne Sin es aces 13 
eta Te UTE ET LCA ats Ed ORE eae 2d 0 snc akg ceary ost olyin aa diane 6% @ 14 
AD, eyes A acne EL ES INAS Petes a tite setachtaty wit os an & sia woe Gain ec 18 
MELE ANCIRM vOrcAL HORT Yoo, cle cu ccnceus ees een 21 
ROTM te eC Vee es cs vis Sela hits boy Gs ek eae ole waeee's 21 

CHAPTER II 
teeter sre, SRG 5S 5 ie colagtals Ge voce on tistete v's 21 


VIII. VARIED RELATIONS OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS.. 25 


DIVISION II 
THE ETHICAL SOURCE 


Creat CERO 


RN ERR ee Ure etna ean A eh ale Sata nin nse one cad ee 34 
ee ee art Loy ENCE LEG VV ies aa aie whee onal wales lo k's w de an ae 34 
eer eee etd ee CRIS hs cae N Gok y St dic ublales 03 39 


IV. 


Lis 


A Manual of Christian Ethics 


Page 
DIVISION III 
THE ETHICAL LAW 
CHAPTERSLY 
CONNEGTINGSE LIN KS tae fae eecey sarees aa eee 50 
PROOFS: OF A'( MORAL ORDER CIN NAIDU Eo cee 51 
BIBLICAL TEACHING REGARDING THE 
MORAT GUA Weise cent sition let een Ree tate tae ae 52 
MORAL AGENTS UNDER “fHE CLAW eee 54 
CHA Pal Rei: 
MORAL AGENTS UNDER THE LAW (continued).... 63 
MEH A Pate R aayeb 
JUSTIFICATION OP VBIBLIGARCE THIGS <n aeeee 70 


DIVISION IV 
THE ETHICAL ANTITHESIS 


CHAPTER EL 


CONNECTING EINK Siieticcs spa ccs oe: ae 78 
DEFINITION AND TERM. (thei term (site veers he 
THE LFACT OF SIN Gecgecnire seeiae ae ctr ee er 79 
CCL PE Rae erie 
THE GENESIS OF SS EN asec costes eis ha ee 83 
THE ERRECTS) OR VSIN cau he tenes. ln ee ee 89 
DIVISION V 


THE ETHICAL RESTORATION 
CHAPTER IX 


CONNECTING EIN Kees) cs canes sedans a eee 92 
THE RESTORATION EFFECTED BY REDEMP- 

TION © 0. cout cee PEO See ee ae ace) enn ee 93 
ETHICAL PREPARATION FOR REDEMPTION..... 94 
THE REDEMPTION THROUGH 4GEIRIS he .sceeee 95 


THE OBJECTS OF REDEMPTION 2ie7..0-0 eae 99 


Table of Contents 


ld Ale Rex 


Vigil ArEiuilGALION OFOREDEMPTION i... ...> 
VII. THE CONSUMMATION OF REDEMPTION ..... 


PART II 
PRACTICAL ETHICS 


DIVISION 1 
INTRODUCTORY, DATA 


GHA r TE Rect 


imesh ECL MA ThE REORSPRACTICAL eT HICSe.22 


IAS Ore TH Me CHRISTIANDLY: Bt HICAL-DINE, o 
Vac bhls IANS CONCEPITON,OR DUTY so. 
NYT be” UN geal me BM SH sd BB BO Dey ar re rag ane arr eee 


CHAP PERS XTt 


Seon, Satoh OUTIES “(continiwed) Os 7.0. ses ws + sa 


CEPA Te Rae. 


ieee ete th DUTIES (continued)” 2... .caci ee. 3 oes 
metre DI BLIOGRAP HV chs. scsi conues «a cee 





cv 
. 






A MANUAL OF 
CHRISTIAN ETHICS 


BAT Lich, 
THEORETICAL ETHICS 


DIVISION I 
THE ETHICAL INTRODUCTION 


CHAPTER I 


I. DEFINITIONS. 
1. IMPORTANCE OF A CORRECT DEFINITION. 


At the beginning of any discipline aiming at a scientific 
presentation, the importance of a correct definition can 
hardly be over-estimated. It is like taking a bird’s-eye view 
of a landscape and determining its scope, general contour 
and special position relative to other areas, before examin- 
ing it in detail. If we can agree on a clear-cut definition of 
our subject at the start, it will be of distinct advantage in 
all our subsequent investigations. 


2. DEFINITION OF GENERAL ETHICS. 


General Ethics 1s the science which treats of the sources, 
principles and practice of right and wrong in the light of 
nature and reason. 


10 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


3. DEFINITION OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS. 


Christian Ethics 1s the science which treats of the sources, 
principles and practice of right and wrong im the light of 
the Holy Scriptures, in addition to the hight of nature and 
reason. 


4. DEFECTIVE DEFINITIONS. 


(1) “Ethics is the science of conduct: it considers the 
actions of human beings in reference to their rightness or 
wrongness, their tendency to good or evil.’ 

This definition limits Ethics to the sphere of “conduct” or 
“actions,” and is therefore faulty. In reality, our science 
deals primarily with principles, motives and character. The 
Bible goes deeper: “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is 
he ;” “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” 
The inside of the platter, as well as the outside, is to be 
made clean. 

A man’s external conduct might be correct according to 
all the canons of conventional ethics, and he might even 
simulate Christian morality quite successfully, at least for 
a time; yet he might be a very immoral person, because his 
motives are evil. It is the inner purpose that determines 
the real character of the actor. “Ethics is quite as much a 
study of character as it is of conduct.’ 

The above definition also lacks fundamental reality, be- 
cause it deals only with man, and does not go back to the 
ultimate source and home of the right and the good. That 
is, it has no real philosophical foundation. 


(2) “Ethics, or Moral Science, is the science of man’s 
life of duty, or what man ought to do in the present world.”* 





1. Mackenzie, Manual of Ethics, p. 1. 
2. Hyslop, The Elements of Ethics, p. 3. 
3. Gregory, Christian Ethics, p. 13. 


Theoretical Ethics 11 


This definition has at least three defects: First, it limits 
ethics to doing, whereas our discipline has fully as much to 
say about being; second, Ethics should not be limited to a 
life of mere duty, because that makes it a constant strain 
and task, whereas it has just as much to say about privilege 
and joy: the truly ethical life is, after all, the most lyrical 
life; third, no good reason can be given for limiting the 
sphere of Ethics to the present life: it may well have an 
outlook into futurity, and, indeed, it must have, to make 
right being and right doing worth while. 


5. DEFINITION OF THE TEXT JUSTIFIED. 


It is believed that the definition given under paragraph 
2 (also 3) above can be maintained. Let us note some rea- 
sons: (1) It clearly marks off the ethical sphere, namely, 
the realm of the right, and its antithesis, the wrong; and this 
conception is easily grasped by human intuition; (2) It goes 
to the root of the matter by seeking the ultimate source of 
the right and the wrong; (3) The truly ethical must have 
its dwelling place in the inner character of the moral agent 
—that is, in his principles; (4) Yet the ethical in principle 
must blossom out in conduct in order to verify itself as gen- 
uine and prove of benefit to the world; as the Schriptures 
teach, men should “let their light shine;’ they should not 
“hide it under a bushel.” 


6. AN OBJECTION ANSWERED. 


The question may be raised whether a science of the 
wrong can be formulated, the objection being that wrong is 
the anarchistic element in the world. Our reply is: 


First, the ultimate principle and source of the wrong can 
be investigated just as can other facts in the world, and in 
doing this we are obliged to employ scientific, inductive and 


12 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


philosophical methods; second, although the wrong per se 
is the principle of moral anarchy, yet, on account of the 
superior power of God and the right, evil has not succeeded 
in throwing the world into chaos; third, for this reason, 
the wrong—or sin—is capable of scientific treatment and 
classification: thus, the theologian is able to schematize sins 
into various genera and species, such as original sin and 
actual sin, sins of omission and commission, inner sins ‘and 
overt sins, etc. 

Therefore we conclude that the definition of Ethics 
should, in order to be thoroughgoing, include the term wrong 
as well as the term right. 


7. OTHER Goop DEFINITIONS. 


“Ethics is the science of rectitude and duty; it treats of 
the right and its obligations.’’* 

“The subject-matter of Ethics is morality, the phenome- 
non of right and wrong.’® 

“Ethics may be defined as the science of morality, or the 
science of moral distinctions.’ 

“Ethics . . . the science of moral personality and moral 
good.”? 


The foregoing definitions are all excellent, because they 
properly delimit our science and make clear its subject- 
matter. However, on the whole, we think that the inclu- 
sion of the simple terms, right and wrong, is wise, chiefly 
because of their simplicity and of most people’s ability to 
perceive their content. 





Valentine, Theoretical Ethics, p. 15. 

Thilly, Introduction to Ethics, p. 5. 

De Laguna, Introduction to the Science of Ethics, pp. 3, 4. 
Hyslop, The Elements of Ethics, p. 4. 


Ne 


Theoretical Ethics 13 


Il. TERMS AND THEIR DERIVATION. 


fee HE LERM LarTHICcs, 


This term is derived from the Greek, ethica, moral, which 
comes from éthos, character, which, according to Aristotle, 
came from the root, ethos, meaning custom or habit. 


However, the science of Ethics, as it has now been devel- 
oped, should not be determined by the etymology of the 
word, for it means far more than merely the habits or social 
convenances of the people. The right and the wrong have 
a real and distinctive basis in the very structure of the uni- 
verse, and thus do not grow in the shallow soil of mere 
arbitrary social customs. 


2. MorAL SCIENCE AND MORAL PHILOSOPHY. 


In former days Ethics was called Moral Science or Moral 
Philosophy. The word “moral” is derived from the Latin 
mos (adjective, moralis), which also means custom or 
usage. Here again it will be seen that the term “moral” has 
come to have a higher significance than its derivation would 
indicate. The same change has taken place in the meaning 
of many other important words, such as “virtue” and “con- 
science.” 

The terms, “Moral Science’ and “Moral Philosophy,” 
are no longer in vogue, but have given place to the briefer 
and more descriptive term, “Ethics,” just as we say “Phys- 
ics” instead of “Physical Science.” 


3. DEONTOLOGY. 


This term has been suggested as a designation for our 
science. Its derivation is to deon, what is due, and logos, 


8. See Valentine, Theoretical Ethics, p. 16 (footnote); Davis, 
Elements of Ethics, p. 36. 


14 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


discourse; hence a discourse about duty. The term, how- 
ever, has never come into vogue; and it would not be an 
acceptable one, because Ethics deals with right, privileges, 
moral joy and uplift, as well as with tasks and duties. 


I HEE CAL CA SER 


1. DEFINITION. 


By the ethical sphere is meant the whole realm of right 
and wrong, or, in other words, of morality. 


ZA LTSDISTINCTIVEDOATA® 


These data consist of all moral phenomena, such as right 
and wrong, moral distinctions, duty, the functioning of con- 
science, the operations of the will in choosing between right 
and wrong, etc. 


That these data are distinctive goes almost without say- 
ing with people whose thinking is unspoiled by bemisting 
speculations. For example, the word right has a very spe- 
cific meaning; so has the word wrong. When you say, 
“An act is right,” you do not mean that it is merely pleasur- 
able, for it may not give pleasure; neither do you mean the 
same as that it is useful, because, at least for the time be- 
ing, it may not seem to be useful, judged by the usual mean- 
ing of that term. The faculty of conscience deals with 
something very different from mere sense perception, or 
mere intellectual processes. You say that you are able to 
solve such and such a mathematical problem; but when the 
question arises as to whether it is right for you to solve it 
just now, or do something else that may be more urgent, a 
very different concept springs up in the mind. 

Not only are ethical data distinctive; they also stand out 
clearly in the mind—at least, the mind that is ethically fit. 


Theoretical Ethics 15 


You are just as conscious of right and wrong as you are of 
many other facts of life. If you do right, something with- 
in you approves; if you do wrong, it disapproves. And 
sometimes the chastisements of conscience are more keenly 
felt than any other kind of emotion. 


Moreover, morality is so paramount in importance, and 
has so much to do with individual, social, national and racial 
welfare, that its data stand out clearly in the human mind, 
just as they ought. 


3. Its DISTINCTIVE QUESTIONS. 


In our science the specific questions are: “Is it right?” 
and its opposite, “Is it wrong?” Apply those questions to 
any status, situation and event, and you will know at once 
whether it belongs to the ethical sphere or not. In physical 
science the distinctive question is, “Is it physical?’ In psy- 
chology we ask, “Is it mental?” In philosophy the ques- 
tion arises, “Is it the ultimate reality?’® In Ethics the in- 
terrogation, “Is it right?” is the deciding one. 


4. Its DISTINCTIVE VOCABULARY. 


Another evidence of a specific ethical realm is the fact 
that language contains so many words with ethical signifi- 
cance. These words, too, are of the highest quality, and 
stand for the finest and most important concepts and truths. 
Try to eliminate all the ethical terminology from the Eng- 
lish language, and see how it would be impoverished. It 
may be profitable to analyze some of our ethical words. 


(1) There is the word ought. What an outstanding 
word! It marks Kant’s great “categorical imperative,” 
meaning the command of duty and obligation. When men 





9. Philosophy deals with experience as a whole (cf. Jevons, Phi- 
losophy: What ts It? 


16 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


know that they ought to do a thing, that should be the end 
of all argument. A well-known speaker, Dr. Joseph Cook, 
a number of years ago used this effective illustration: If 
you should place the whole world on one side of the scales 
and the word “ought” on the other, the word would tip the 
beam. Again, if the whole physical universe were likewise 
balanced against our potent ethical word, the word would 
outweigh the universe. 


(2) The word virtue is another forceful word. From 
the Latin vir, man, it originally pertained only to masculin- 
ity, and thus meant manlike quality; but in our day it has a 
more purely ethical significance, so that we may speak just 
as appropriately of a virtuous woman as of a virtuous man. 


Like a good many other words, the word virtue may be 
used in both an ethical and non-ethical sense, e. g.: “He is a 
man of great virtue’—ethical; “That medicine has a great 
virtue” (curative efficacy )—non-ethical. As a rule, we can 
distinguish the ethical or the non-ethical sense of a word 
from its context. 


(3) The word good is an interesting ethical word. It 
may also be used in more than one sense: “He is a good 
man” — ethical; “This is a good apple’—non-ethical. A 
comparatively young child would be likely to sense the dif- 
ference intuitively, although he might not be able to ex- 
press it.*° 





10. In dealing with the word “good” Herbert Spencer revealed 
his lack of clear ethical discernment: for he seemed to think that, 
when we speak of a good or bad knife, gun or house, we mean the 
same thing as when we speak of a good or bad man! This is an in- 
stance in which speculation dulled the native intuitions of a great 
man’s mind. Had Mr. Spencer but remembered the simple fact that 
we use many words in different senses, according to the context and 
circumstances, he would have been saved confusion of thought. 
Hyslop (ut supra, pp. 94, 95) criticises Spencer acutely. 


Theoretical Ethics | 17 


(4) The word moral is one of our outstanding ethical 
words. It may be used in a variety of ways. If we speak 
of a moral man or a moral cause, it means distinctively that 
such a man or cause is of the right character. On the other 
hand, when we speak of moral science, the word moral con- 
notes a scientific discussion of the wrong as well as of the 
right. 


Prefixes to the word moral cause some interesting vari- 
eties of meaning. We call a block of wood non-moral or 
unmoral, but could not properly call it immoral. However, 
we would not call a rational person non-moral or unmoral, 
but either moral or immoral, according as his character is 
good or bad. 


(5) Although so many quotations-marks may make our 
page look “choppy,” let us make a list of ethical words, to 
prove the fundamental place they hold in our language and 
hence in our thought; for words, as we know, are the sym- 
bols of conceptions and ideas. 


Observe the many ethical particles of every-day speech: 
snot. © wold... must, will,” “shall” scan,” each: of 
which conveys its peculiar shade of meaning in the ethical 
realm. The word “should” is only a milder term for 
“ought.” Other distinctively ethical terms are: “right,” 
“righteousness,” “good,’ “rectitude,” “virtue,’ “purity,” 
“chastity,” “holiness,” “sanctity,” “uprightness,” “veracity,” 


“probity,’ “honesty,” “courage” (moral), “conscientious- 


ness;” and their antitheses: “wrong,” “evil,’ “sin,” “un- 
righteousness,” “wickedness,” “vileness,”’ “cowardice,” “ob- 
liquity,’ “meanness,” “mendacity,’ “perfidy,” “two-faced- 


ness,” etc. Besides, all the words that involve the action 
of the will bear a moral significance, like “freedom,” “lib- 
erty,” “choice,” “volition,” “decision,” “steadfastness,” “de- 


18 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


9) 


termination,’ “firmness,” and many more. Even their op- 
posites, like “thralldom,” “bondage,” “indecision,” “‘vacil- 
lation,” and the like, connote an abuse of man’s moral 
powers, and therefore have their ethical implications. 


a2 66 


DV oss CU Sie ee ee Ge 


1. Ir DEALS WITH OBSERVED DATA. 


Surely the facts of morality are not obscure. Of course, 
there are certain lacunae (dark places) in the moral realm, 
but the same is true in all science. Even Mr. Huxley, the 
professed agnostic, admitted that the mysteries of the Chris- 
tian creed, including the incarnation, the virgin birth of 
Christ, the Trinity and the resurrection, were no more dif- 
ficult and insoluble than are those of the physical realm. 

But let us make some comparisons. You are just as 
conscious of moral conceptions and feelings as you are of 
sense perception. When you do right, you know it just as 
distinctly as you know when you see a tree on the campus 
or hear a bird singing in the tree. The testimony of con- 
science is just as vivid as is any other impingement upon 
the center of consciousness." 

Not only are the ethical data outstanding and clear, but 
they are of the very first importance; for civilization, how- 
ever far advanced, cannot long endure unless it is founded 
on sound ethical principles and practices. “Righteousness 
exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” 





11. Frank Thilly (Introduction to Ethics, pp. 5, 6): “It is a fact 
that men call certain characters and actions moral and immoral, 
right and wrong, good and bad; that they approve of them and dis- 
approve of them, express moral judgments upon them. ... Now 
this fact is as capable and as worthy of investigation as any other 
fact in the universe, and we need a science that will subject it to 
careful analysis.” Also page 9: “That we place a value upon things, 
that we call them right or good, wrong or bad, is the important fact 
in Ethics; is what makes a science of Ethics possible.” 


Theoretical Ethics 19 


A man might be a great scholar, yet, if he were immoral, 
he would not be a good and respected member of society. 
On the other hand, a man might have very little academic 
learning, yet, if he were of high moral character, he would 
have the respect of his fellowmen and might wield a large 
influence for good. 


The man who closes his eyes to the outstanding and 
supremely important data of morality surely cannot be re- 
garded as a true scientist; for empirical science must take 
all the facts into account. Think of casting away and ig- 
noring all the moral data of human society! How one- 
sided and superficial that would be! 


2. It ASSEMBLES THE OBSERVED DATA INTO A SYSTEM. 


This is another mark of science. It does more than 
merely observe facts. It tries to classify them, to orientate 
them into a system. And the scientific ethicist is able to 
do this with the facts he has observed and gathered together. 
No science has a better methodology than Ethics. In a work 
on physical science, the material is never thrown together 
hodgepodge, but is always arranged in the best order pos- 
sible. Note that the data of right and wrong can be treated 
in the same systematic way. 


3. It MAKES LEGITIMATE INDUCTIONS FROM THE DATA 
THUS ASSEMBLED. 


In doing this, it must be careful that it does not become 
too speculative. Yet no scientist can very well avoid draw- 
ing inductions from the facts he has accumulated and sys- 
tematized, and as long as his inductions are valid, he has a 
right to consider them at least as the rational conclusions 
from the facts. 


20 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


No one can deny that our science, like all others, must 
sometimes deal with and reason from a priori principles; 
but even so it should be understood that those principles are 
first based on the observed or empirical facts of nature and 
thought; then, having first been established by the imduc- 
tive method, which is the recognized scientific method of 
the day, we have a right to use them in the a priori or de- 
ductive way, to see whether our inductions will account for 
any further facts that may be discovered. That is the 
method of all scientific processes today. A theory is em- 
ployed as long as it explains all the facts; when it fails to 
explain any facts, it must be either modified or abandoned. 


4. ETHICS A NORMATIVE SCIENCE. 


In contrast with physical science, Ethics is known as a 
normative science,?? because it holds up a standard, rule or 
norm—that is, the ideal of moral good, by which all actual 
character and conduct are to be tested; whereas the phys- 
ical sciences deal purely with things as they are, not with 
things as they ought to be. 


However, it is not correct to say, “Ethics is the science of 
the ideal as contrasted with the actual,’ as one author 
phrases it. No; our science deals with actual conditions, 
and examines, classifies, and tries to give account of them. 
At the same time it also deals with what ought to be. Ethics 
has to do with both moral reality and moral ideality. It is 
an is-science as well as an ought-science. It is normative 
in the sense that the ideal standard is always upheld as the 
goal of moral endeavor. 





12. See Mackenzie, Manual of Ethics, pp. 4-8, 20-22; Murray, 
A Handbook of Christian Ethics, pp. 1-3. 


Theoretical Ethics 21 


V. THE NORM OF AUTHORITY. 


In the present work the Canonical Scriptures of the Old 
and New Testaments are regarded as the ultimate court of 
appeal As will be shown later, it is the business of Chris- 
tian Apologetics to vindicate the divine inspiration and 
authority of the Holy Scriptures, while Christian Ethics 
accepts the findings of its sister theological discipline and 
builds upon them. On the other hand, the high standard of 
morality inculcated by the Bible becomes, in turn, a cogent 
apologetic for its divine inspiration."® 


VI. METHODOLOGY. 


1. DEFINITION. 


Methodolgy is the scientific form adopted in classifying, 
co-ordinating and developing the data of any science either 
as a whole or in any of its branches. Its processes and re- 
sults are employed whenever an attempt is made to organize 
and unfold a science. The scientific method is to find 
some unifying fact or principle around which to assemble 
the varied materials that have been collected. 


2. Its APPLICATION TO ETHICS. 


Every ethicist uses his own method. There can be no 
doubt that some methods are superior to others. Some deal 
with the subject more fundamentally and logically than do 
others. The methods of some writers are difficult to un- 
derstand and remember, due to the fact that the material 
is not well arranged. 





13. No one version is followed in quoting Biblical passages in 
this work. As a rule, the authorized version is preferred when it is 
correct. But the author sometimes follows other versions or ven- 
tures to give a translation of his own. 


fd A Manual of Christian Ethics 


All that the author of this work can claim for his method 
is that he has tried to be fundamental, logical and progres- 
sive in his assembling of the ethical material. The General 
Outline on an early page will indicate the plan that has been 
pursued. Then in the body of the work various divisions 
and sub-divisions have been made, so that both instructor 
and student may use the material in the most effective way 
both in preparing the lessons and in conducting the sessions 
in the classroom. 


Although the author is not a little indebted to Dr. Milton 
Valentine’s profound and masterly work** for some funda- 
mental suggestions, he does not believe that any other eth- 
ical system has been grounded and built up according to 
the plan here used. 


Part I deals with “Theoretical Ethics,’ and includes defi- 
nitions, relations, the ultimate source of right, the objective 
law of right, the origin and nature of wrong, the facts of 
moral agency and moral distinctions, thus laying down the 
foundational principles of morality. Part II, “Practical 
Ethics,’ seeks to apply these principles to the conduct of 
human life. The foundation and center of the whole sys- 
tem lies in the section which treats of “The Ultimate Source 
of Right; for if men will think the matter through, they 
must logically come to the conclusion that the only world- 
view which affords a real and fundamental basis for a 
moral economy is the theistic world-view. As will be shown 
in due course, morality can be predicated only of rational 
personalities. 


14. Theoretical Ethics. 


CHAPTER II 


eee LORCA = SKETCH: 


1. Morar INTUITIONS. 


Moral intuitions date from man’s creation, being innate. 
Both history and reason prove this to be so. As far back 
as any historical records can be found, men were moral 
beings, however undeveloped. Reason and science also 
teach that the moral could not have evolved from the non- 
moral merely by resident forces, for that would have vio- 
lated the principle of causality, which teaches that no effect 
can be greater than its cause. Hence human morality both 
in character and conduct existed long before any science of 
Ethics was attempted. The same may be said of all the 
other sciences—for example, botany, astronomy, mathemat- 
ics, psychology and theology. 


2. HEBREW ETHICS. 


Among the Hebrews all men were considered capable of 
virtue, and a very high standard of morality was inculcated 
by their prophets, although the practice of the people fell 
far below it. 


If we accept the Old Testament as a record of veritable 
history, man was created a moral agent, able to discern be- 
tween right and wrong, and determine himself toward them 
by the use of his will, and was subjected to a moral test, 
which was placed before him in the form of “the tree of 
the knowledge of good and evil,” of which he was forbidden 
to eat. Whether the narrative is actual history or not, it is 
evident that the Hebrews believed that man was created a 


24 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


moral being. To many profound minds the exalted char- 
acter of this ethical conception is one of the convincing 
proofs that the Bible is a divinely inspired book. The fact 
is also to be noted that there was a progressive development 
and revelation of ethical ideals in Hebrew history, culminat- 
ing in the marvellous ethical teachings of Christianity. 


3. HEATHEN ETHICS. 


Among the heathen peoples ethical ideals also prevailed, 
sometimes to a high degree with their leaders; but usually 
only a certain favored class were considered capable of 
virtue, while the rest were regarded as little better than 
animals, fitted only to be slaves. This exclusive, or, we 
might say aristocratic, kind of ethics, was taught even in 
Plato’s work, The Ideal Republic. 


4. EARLIEST SCIENTIFIC EFFORTS. 


The first attempts at a scientific and philosophic treat- 
ment of morality were made by Socrates, Plato and Aris- 
totle. Earlier sporadic efforts were made by the Sophists, 
but the results were almost negligible, and left little perma- 
nent impress on human history. 


5. LATER ATTEMPTS. 

Later attempts at giving a philosophical and rational 
account of morality were made by the Epicureans (Hedon- 
ists) and Stoics. Among the Greeks we may mention Epi- 
curus and Zeno, and among the Romans, Seneca, Cicero, 
Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. 


6. FROM THE FIRST TO THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES. 

From the establishment of Christianity to the seventeenth 
century, Ethics was usually included in Theology, and there- 
fore was called Christian or Theological Ethics. 


Theoretical Ethics 25 


7. FROM THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY TO DATE. 


Since the beginning of the seventeenth century, Ethics 
has taken a prominent place among the so-called normative 
sciences, along with Logic, Esthetics, etc. Christian Ethics 
has become a separate science in distinction from Christian 
Dogmatics, because the moral data were apt to be slighted 
when they were treated in connection with doctrines. Sys- 
tems of Natural or General Ethics, based merely on nature 
and reason, have been developed by many writers in these 
modern times.* 


VIll. VARIED RELATIONS OF CHRISTIAN ETH- 
1h Eien 


No branch of science stands alone. All sciences are 
organically related. One might say that there is a frater- 
nity of the sciences. The world is a cosmos, not a chaos; 
a unity in diversity. This fact makes scientific knowledge 
possible, and its pursuit an unending delight. 


1. To PHYSICAL SCIENCE. 


Our science gladly accepts whatever has been clearly es- 
tablished by research in the physical realm. It does not 
ignore, much less despise, these verified results. Indeed, 
to put aside any truth through fear or prejudice would be 
unethical, and for that very reason would be subversive of 
ethical science. 


Yet the ethicist should not be hasty in accepting the mere 
speculations and unproved deductions of scientific men. 
There is a great deal of so-called science that is not really 
empirical, but is built on hypotheses that are far from being 





1. For a number of the facts stated in this sketch we are in- 
debted to Valentine, Theoretical Ethics, pp. 17-20. 


26 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


validated. So the ethicist will make haste slowly in deal- 
ing with scientific theories. In these days, however, it 
would be impossible to treat the data of ethics thoroughly 
without at some points indicating the bearing of the theory 
of evolution upon the moral economy. 


2: fo PSYCHOLOGY. 


There is a vital sense in which Ethics is a division of 
mental science, because the moral faculties of man are a 
fundamental part of his psychical constitution. If the 
ethical sphere were limited to the moral nature of man, our 
science would be only a branch of psychology; but the eth- 
ical sphere has a wider scope than man’s mental make-up, 
because it investigates the ultimate source and the objective 
law of right. Thus, while Ethics and Psychology overlap 
and integrate in most intimate ways, each has its specific 
field of investigation. 

The following outline of the human mind will prove 
helpful, we hope, in indicating man’s outstanding moral 
powers. For proper moral functioning the whole mind is 
necessary, but the Conscience and the Will are especially 
essential to moral action. In the following outline the places 
of these mental powers are indicated. 


OUTLINE OF THE HUMAN MIND 


Te ELON DIG hE Ge 
1. THE SENSEs: 
(1) Sight; (2) Hearing; (3) Touch; (4) Smell; (5) 
Taste; (6) Other senses according to some psy- 
chologists. 


2. THE INTUITION: 
(1) Cognition of outward reality. 


Theoretical Ethics AGE 


(2) Cognition of self: self-consciousness. 

(3) Cognition of time and space. 

(4) Cognition of cause and effect. 

(5) Cognition of axioms. 

(6) Cognition of truth and error. 

(7) Cognition of beauty and repulsiveness: Esthetic 
Faculty. 

(8) Cognition of Right and Wrong: Conscience as 
Perception. 

(9) Cognition of God: theistic intuition. 


3. THE UNDERSTANDING: 
(1) Reflection. 
(2) Memory. 
(3) Imagination. 
(4) Scientific Faculty. 
(5) Logical Faculty. 
(6) Philosophical Faculty. 


II. THE SENSIBILITIES (Emotions, Feelings). 
1. THE SENTIENT EMOTIONS: 
2. THE PsycHICAL EMOTIONS: 
3. THE INTUITIONAL EMOTIONS: 
(1) Affectional. 
(2) Esthetic. 
(3) Scientific and philosophical. 
(4) Ethical: Conscience as Feeling; the Moral Sense. 
(5) Theistic. 
Hie vibe WILL. 
1, THE WILL IN LIBERTY: 
(1) The power of attention. 


(2) The power of choice. 
(3) The power of execution. 


28 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


2. THe WILL IN ACTION: 


(1) Through the Sense. 

(2) Through the Understanding. 
(3) Through the Intuition. 

(4) In the Emotions. 


A distinction is here worth making: Psychology studies 
the human mind with a mental interest ; Ethics with a moral 
interest. In psychology the chief question is, “How does 
the mind function?” in Ethics, “Is it right for the mind to 
function in this or that way??? 


3. To PHILOSOPHY. 


The sciences of General and Christian Ethics cannot 
avoid entering the field of philosophy to some extent. They 
must try to solve the problems of the ultimate source of 
right, the basis of the moral law and the moral imperative 
over man; and these are problems which Philosophy, too, 
must canvass. However, the difference between the two 
disciplines is this: Philosophy seeks to solve the ethical 
problem, that is, in what the good consists and what is its 
basis; but, having done this, it passes on to consider its 
other problems, the problem of being (Ontology), the prob- 





2. The reader will observe that the foregoing is an outline of 
pure psychology; it is not physiology with a little psychology as a 
by-product or with mind as a mere epiphenomenon. The author is 
a firm believer in dualism and in the theory of the interaction of the 
mind and the body, which, he holds, are two distinct entities, al- 
though vitally connected during this earthly life. Let any person 
analyze his own experience, and note whether the body does not 
affect the mind, and the mind in turn the body. For an able and 
convincing vindication of dualism and interaction read Dr. James 
Bissett Pratt’s book, Matter and Spirit (1922). Of course, not all 
the minute psychical processes are indicated in the outline given 
above, but these are the outstanding ones, as any one may know by 
analyzing the action of his own mind. 


Theoretical Ethics 29 


lem of knowledge (Epistemology), the problem of person- 
ality, etc.® 

On the other hand, Theoretical Ethics tries to solve the 
problem of right and wrong, and then proceeds to assemble 
and organize all the data of morality into a system, making 
it a science as well as a philosophy. For the foregoing rea- 
sons the discipline of Philosophy is of much value to the 
student of Ethics, affording him mental training, and at the 
same time throwing much light on the profounder problems 
of our science. This distinction should also be made: 
there is a difference for thought and life between a merely 
philosophical interest and an ethical interest in the world. 


4. To CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. 


Christian Dogmatics is a system of doctrine drawn from 
the Bible and developed in the light of knowledge and rea- 
son. Practically all the Loci of Christian Dogmatics and 
Christian Ethics pervade and ramify one another, and can 
be distinguished only in thought. Every dogma has its 
ethical aspect or quality. Dogmatics asks, “What is the 
doctrine of God?” Ethics, “What is the moral nature of 
God?” Dogmatics inquires, “What is the doctrine of the 
person of Christ?’ Ethics, “Is Christ holy, good and pure?” 


So intimate is the relation between the two disciplines 
that some theologians have objected to their being treated 
separately ;* and it must be admitted that there is consider- 
able overlapping. However, when Christian doctrine and 
morality are treated together in one science, one or the other 
is apt to be slighted or neglected, according to the interest 
of the author. Thus we believe that they should be treated 





3. See Hibben, The Problems of Philosophy. 
4. Especially Sartorious in his truly great book, The Doctrine of 
Divine Love. 


30 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


as separate disciplines, although their vital relation should 
be constantly borne in mind. 


5. To CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS. 


Here, too, the relation is most vital. Asa rule, Christian 
Ethics may accept the findings of Apologetics, and build its 
system upon them. If the Apologist holds stalwart views 
of the Bible and the Christian system, the Ethicist who fol- 
lows him will make the Bible his ultimate court of appeal. 
Should he be a liberalist, his ethical system will be built on 
human reason first of all, while the Bible will be appealed 
to only when it fits into the subjective views of the author. 

Although Christian Ethics as a rule follows Apologetics, 
yet it will, in turn, constitute a cogent apologetic for the 
Bible and Christianity by its presentation of the pure moral- 
ity they inculcate. The high standard of moral teaching 
in the Bible, compared with ethnic systems, is a powerful 
argument for its divine inspiration and authority. 


6. To THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA. 


This discipline is intended to give a general survey of 
the whole field of theological science, with a systematic 
arrangément of its several branches and a discussion of 
their mutual relations. It may be well here to present the 
main outline of our system of Theological Encyclopedia,® 
so that the student may clearly see the position occupied by 
our science: 


I. INTRODUCTORY DATA. 


II. Matn Divisions. 
1. Exegetical Theology. 
2. Historical Theology. 


5. See the author’s Theological Outlines and Theses, pp. 4, 5, a 
text used in his classroom. 


Theoretical Ethics eal 


3. Systematic Theology. 


' (1) Biblical Theology. 
(2) Christian Dogmatics. 
(3) Christian Apologetics. 
(4) Christian Ethics. 
(5) Christian Psychology.® 


4. Practical Theology. 


7. To NATURAL THEISM. 


This science treats of the existence and character of God 
in the light of nature and reason. Christian Ethics goes 
back to God as the ultimate ground and source of morality, 
and, besides citing the Holy Scriptures as authoritative, 
often appeals to the arguments of Natural Theism in sup- 
port of the Biblical teaching. What is known in Theism 
as the Moral Argument for the divine existence interlaces 
with the fundamental principles of Christian morality.’ 


Se LOT SOCIOLOGY: 


This is a very important practical science, which has also 
its profound elemental principles, and therefore has a phil- 
osophical foundation. What is its relation to Ethics? In 
all sociological problems the question of right and wrong 
should always be a fundamental one. Sociology, which 
deals with men in their relations with one another, should 
not become merely utilitarian, economic and materialistic ; 





6. By the action of the Faculty of Hamma Divinity School this 
discipline was added, some years ago, to the department of System- 
atic Theology. It seems, therefore, to be appropriate to include it 
in the above outline. 

7. Readers who may wish to investigate the several arguments 
for the divine existence are here referred to the following works: 
Flint, Theism, Anti-Theistic Theories; Valentine, Natural Theology; 
Micou, Basic Ideas in Religion; Snowden, The Personality of God; 
Keyser, A System of Natural Theism. 


oe A Manual of Christian Ethics 


it should see to it that all social relations are based on the 
principles of righteousness. Therefore, Ethics and Sociol- 
ogy are closely bound together, and should walk hand in 
hand. One study complements the other. Sociology will 
broaden and deepen the ethical insight and interest, and will 
endeavor to make out a program of social welfare; while 
Ethics will keep social science loyal to the principles of 
righteousness, and will never allow it to wallow in the mire 
of mere expediency and utilitarianism. 


9. To GENERAL ETHICS. 


In a Christian land Natural Ethics cannot avoid contact 
with Christian teaching, which sheds a radiant light upon 
all the ethical problems. Indeed, it would be unethical, as 
well as unscientific, for General Ethics to ignore the most 
outstanding and potent ethical phenomenon in the world, 
namely, Christianity. Thus, while the general ethicist may 
try to work only in the light of nature and reason, he is 
unconsciously influenced by the Christian revelation which 
shines all around him. It cannot be denied that the best 
and clearest systems of Natural Ethics have been wrought 
out in times and countries that have been illumined by Bib- 
lical teaching.$ 


Christian Ethics is broader than Natural Ethics, because 
the former accepts all the light and data that may be derived 
from nature and reason, and then adds to it the clearer light 
that comes from divine revelation. The God of the Bible, 
according to its own teaching, is also the God who created 
the physical cosmos, made man to fit into it, and still con- 
tinues to preserve and care for it. 

8. For works on general morality that recognize the Bible as the 


record of special divine revelations, cf. Valentine, Theoretical Ethics; 
Keyser, A System of General Ethics. 


Theoretical Ethics 33 


10. RELATION TO RELIGION. 


There are religions which do not necessarily include the 
ethical element, or at least a very cogent ethical element. 
This is the case when the religion consists chiefly of cere- 
monial performances. Thus a man may be a very strict 
religionist, and yet may not be an unpright moral man. 


However, such is not the case in Biblical teaching. Mo- 
rality belongs to the very essence of the Christian religion. 
To call a man an immoral Christian is to use contradictory 
terms, as much as it would be to say that a man is a good 
bad man or a bad good man. In Christianity men are saved 
from sin unto righteousness (Matt. 1:21; Acts 5:31; Rom. 
Les 12255 823; 4514917 22 Cor. 6:4424 Tim, 6311). 
“With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with 
the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10: 
10). The whole plan of redemption through Christ is sur- 
charged with the ethical element: there is no salvation in 
Christianity except salvation from sin unto holiness of life. 


The Christian religion might be compared to a fabric 
woven of two chief fibers — spirituality and morality. By 
spirituality is meant man’s relation to and communion with 
God who is a Spirit; therefore man must have the spiritual 
mind (John 3:5, 6; Rom. 8:6; 1 Cor. 2:14). By moral- 
ity is meant that this spiritual religion must be pervaded 
with truth, honesty, purity. It is all summed up in one of 
our Lord’s crucial teachings: “God is a Spirit; and they 
that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth” 
(John 4:24). To “worship Him in spirit” means to be 
spiritually minded; to “worship in truth” means to be thor- 
oughly sincere and honest — that is, ethical. 


DIVISION II 


THE ETHICAL SOURCE 
(The Source of Right) 


CHAPTER III 


Pel HUN TL GINS 


By this thesis we mean to answer these vital questions: 
What is the eternal dwelling-place of the Right? What is 
the ultimate Source of Moral Good? Why is one thing 
right and another wrong? What is the raison d’etre of 
moral distinctions ?? 


He pL eC RIS GANSVLE AW. 


1. STATEMENT. 


The Ultimate Source of Right is God, the eternal, per- 
sonal, self-existent, and perfect Creator, Preserver and Re- 
deemer of the world.” 





1. We cannot agree with Dr. Hyslop (The Elements of Ethics, 
p. 21) that all inquiries into the ultimate reality and nature of the 
ethical is to be relegated to Metaphysics. An ethical system that 
does not seek for a philosophical foundation surely cannot rightly 
be said to be adequate. Dr. Hyslop is inconsistent with himself, 
for he says in one place that such problems as the freedom of the 
will, etc., “must be deferred to Metaphysics;” yet he devotes 73 
pages to a discussion of the freedom of the will! Important as this 
thesis is, it is still more important to find the ultimate basis of right 
and wrong. 

2. Valentine, ut supra, pp. 138-181. Says John Fiske, in his Cos- 
mic Philosophy (Vol. Il, p. 470): The Deity is “knowable as the 
eternal source of the Moral Law, which is implicated with each ac- 
tion of our lives.” 


Theoretical Ethics 35 


PSHE BIBLICAT.: £ EACHING. 


(1) On this problem the Bible teaching is as abundant 
as it is explicit. God is the Creator of the cosmos (Gen. 
1:1) and of man (Gen. 1:26, 27) ; hence He must be the 
Eternal Source of the Good. 


(2) At the close of each epoch of the creative week God 
pronounced what He had made good (tov, Gen. 1:10, 12, 
18, 21, 25) ; having finished His creative work by the mak- 
ing of man in His own image, He called His collective work 
very good (tov meod; Gen. 1:31), which means supremely 
good. The Hebrew adjective tov often refers to God in 
the Bible, and also connotes moral good in many /oct. There- 
fore, since God made all things good, He must be the 
Ground and Source of all good, moral as well as physical. 

(3) The prohibition in the garden of Eden, when God 
forbade eating of “the tree of the knowledge of good and 
evil,’ would imply that God is the source of the good, but 
not of the evil; else He would have had no right to make 
such an inhibition nor to punish Adam and Eve for their 
disobedience. 

(4) The Trisagion, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of 
hosts” (Isa. 6:3), and the many places where God is called 
“most holy,” “the Holy One,” “the Holy One of Israel,” 
all would indicate that God, the Creator, is separate from 
sinners and the one “altogether excellent.” 

(5) “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of 
His throne” (Ps. 97:2) points to the truth that God is the 
source of all moral qualities. 

(6) Our Lord attributes all good to God: “If ye then, 
being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, 
how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give 
good things to them that ask Him’ (Matt. 7:11)? Vrnpa. 19 (OF ke 


a much beth posece tan any ced 


36 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


(7) St. James teaches the same tuth: “Every good gift 
and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from 
the Father of lights” (Jas. 1:17). 


(8) The same doctrine is taught in this passage: “Let no 
man say, when he is tempted, | am tempted of God; for 
God cannot be tempted with evil, and He tempteth no man” 


(Jas.4: 13). 


(9) By means of a Bible concordance one might note 
the many passages that ascribe “excellency” to God (Ex. 
15:7; Ps. 8:1). Indeed, He is possessed of all the moral 
attributes, and is the foundation of them all. 


3. THe BIBLICAL TEACHING VINDICATED BY REASON. 


(1) That there is a moral law that puts an imperative 
upon the human conscience few people would deny. A feel- 
ing, an intuition, of such a commanding law is practically 
universal in the human race. But a moral law connotes a 
lawgiver; and that leads back to a personal God as the 
Source of Right. 


(2) To stop too soon in our search for the source of 
the right and good is superficial. We can think back to a 
personal and absolute Being, God, but then we have reached 
the ultima thule. We should have the depth needed to go 
back as far as thought can go. 


(3) And why is God the ultimate Being? Because it 
is idle to raise the question, “Who made God?” because it 
involves a contradiction ; for if some other being made God, 
he would not be God ; and thus we would be led to an un- 
ending series of beings depending on nothing—a proposi- 
tion that thought cannot endure. 

(4) Morality can be predicated only of rational person- 
alities. We cannot call mere things or animals moral. Nor 


Theoretical Ethics ave 


do we ascribe morality to lunatics and other demented 
people. Since, therefore, morality can be ascribed only to 
rational personal beings, the Ultimate Source of morality 
must be a Personal Being—God. 


(5) The right must be eternal; for if there ever was a 
time when right was not, it never could have come into 
existence. But the right implies a rational personality in 
whom it inheres and by whom it is enacted—a kind of rea- 
soning that leads back to God as the Ultimate Source of the 
Right. 


(6) The universe, being rational, demands a rational 
cause. The non-rational or the irrational could not develop 
into the rational merely by resident forces. But a rational 
First Cause must be a Person; at least, we know of no kind 
of beings who can exercise rationality except persons. The 
right and the good are a part of the rationality of the cos- 
mos; therefore they must have their ground and source in 


God. 


(7) The Right is grounded in both the nature and the 
will of God. God must be good in His very being, or He 
could not be good at all. At the same time, He must be 
free, or He would not be a moral being. Yet, if there ever 
was a time when He was not free, He never could have be- 
come free. Whatever God is now, He must have been from 
eternity. Only that which is finite and had a beginning is 
capable of development. That which is eternal must be 
absolute, and therefore always the same. Thus in God’s 
eternal being there is the perfect correlation of the ethically 
necessary and the ethically free. 


For these reasons we must not posit the Right in God’s 
nature alone, nor in His will alone, but in both. He is eter- 
nally good by nature, and yet He is eternally good by choice. 


38 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


Otherwise good and evil would be due only to the arbitrary 
election of the eternal Being, and that is not rational. If 
we cannot hold this conception clearly in mind, we might as 
well abandon the effort to solve the problem of the Ultimate 
Source of the morally good. 


In this conception lies the reason for moral distinctions. 
Why is one thing right and another wrong? The answer 
is: A thing is right when it is in accord with the holy nature 
and will of God; a thing is wrong when it is opposed to His 
holy nature and will. 


Thus, by a process of reasoning, we learn that a moral 
universe, such as the one in which we live and move and 
have our being, demands a theistic origin and foundation, 
and this conclusion agrees with the teaching of the Holy 
Scriptures. 


4. THE Hicuest Goop (Ta Agathon; Summum Bonum). 


In view of the foregoing discussion, one of the funda- 
mental problems of Ethics, namely, What is the Highest 
Good? seems to be comparatively easy of solution. If God 
is the source of the good, then He Himself as the Absolute 
Being must be the Highest Good in the supreme sense. And 
since God created man in His own image, likeness to his 
Maker must be the Highest Good for man. With this view 
the Bible coincides: “Ye shall be holy, for I am holy” (Lev. 
19:2; 1 Pet. 1:16) ; “Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your 
father in heaven is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). Of course, for 
Christian Ethics this means that we should become like 
Christ (Eph. 4: 13), who is the express image of the Father 
(Heb. 1:13), and who became “God manifest in the flesh” 
in order that He might be able to set us a concrete example 
of righteous living. 


To the writer’s mind, this view of the Summum Bonum 


Theoretical Ethics 39 


is simple and concrete. To learn what are the holy attrib- 
utes of God, we must study His character in His Word and 
in the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. Thus the Highest 
Good in Christian Ethics is not something hazy and inde- 
terminate, but is clear and concrete. 


Bishop Martensen* and Bishop D’Arcy* define the High- 
est Good as the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of heaven; 
and perhaps by means of a rather circular method of rea- 
soning they are able to make their meaning fairly clear; 
but we believe that likeness to God is more simple and con- 
crete; and surely if each individual would strive to incar- 
nate the divine image in his character and life, the result 
would be the establishment of the kingdom of God in the 
world. 


Pee MANIS IG, LAE ORIES. 


The problem of the Highest Good has been one of the 
outstanding problems of Ethics ever since men began to 
think on the question of morality. Various answers have 
been given throughout the world’s history, the chief of 
which it will, we think, be profitable to examine briefly.® 





3. Christian Ethics. 
4. Christian Ethics and Modern Thought. 


5. A scholarly survey and exposition of the various ethical the- 
ories, from the Sophists to the Modern Schools, is found in De 
Laguna’s Introduction to the Science of Ethics, Part II. Although 
we have not found it convenient to follow his classification, we call 
the reader’s attention to his valuable work. He classifies the Greek 
schools as follows: Hedonism, Energism and Rigorism. The theo- 
ries of the first school are sufficiently explained in the text. To our 
mind, De Laguna does not make the distinction between the other 
two schools very clear. They might, we think, be differentiated in 
this way: The Energists, as their name would imply, put the stress 
on moral endeavor, true self-realization and the attainment of the 
Highest Good, without despising pleasure as a legitimate result. 
Plato, Aristotle and their followers were Energists. The Rigorists 
laid more emphasis on sternness, austerity and self-denial in order 


40 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


1. THE SopHISTs. 


With these early Greek speculatists, who flourished dur- 
ing the fifth century B. C., the primary question was, “What 
is the permanent element in Morality?” Hippias held that it 
was “the underlying principle of justice;”’ Thrasymachus, 
“the interest of the strongest” —a kind of “struggle-for- 
existence’ theory. 

These conclusions were not very definite. Compare 
them with the Christian view—that the Summum Bonum is 
likeness to God in moral character. 


2. SOCRATES. 


This great philosopher conceived that knowledge is the 
Highest Good. Give people the right kind of knowledge, 
and they will be righteous. 

While this view is more definite than that of the Sophists, 
it still is inadequate ; for people need more than mere knowl- 
edge to cure them of evil and cause them to walk in the way 
of uprightness. “If ye know these things, happy are ye if 
ye do them’’—showing that there may be a schism between 
knowledge and righteousness. The Christian view is much 
more profound. 


Soe LATO: 

This philosopher approached more nearly to the Chris- 
tian view than any others of the various Greek schools.® 
To realize the divine ideas expressed in the cosmos is the 
Highest Good for man, said Plato. This means the theistic 





to achieve virtue, and would not permit the desire for pleasure to 
color their motives in the least. Thus their views tended toward 
asceticism. They were the Greek Puritans. The Cynics and Stoics 
were the Rigorists. Antisthenes and Diogenes were Cynics, and 
Zeno was the founder of Stoicism. 


6. Plato was the founder of “The Academy,” which was the 
name of a grove near Athens in which he held his conferences. 


Theoretical Ethics 41 


view, and seems properly to ground morality. Yet Plato 
failed to press and stress this basic doctrine as is done in 
Christian Ethics. His fourfold classification of the virtues, 
namely, wisdom, courage, self-control and justice, fails to 
include some of the noblest Christian graces, without giv- 
ing too elastic a meaning to the terms. They would not 
include faith, hope and love. In Plato’s Ideal Republic the 
State was made sovereign, and the principles were far too 
aristocratic. 


4, ARISTOTLE. 

The source and norm of moral ideas lies in the rational 
spirit of man." But here the question would arise, What 
is the source of man’s rational nature? After all, this great 
philosopher did not go back to the Ultimate Source of Right, 
as Christian Ethics demands. His advocacy of the via 
media (the medium way), implying the avoidance of ex- 
tremes and eccentricities, however, is valuable in the prac- 
tice of moral principles. 


5. HEDONISM. 

Hedonism (from hedus, sweet, pleasant) might be called 
the pleasure theory of life. The Highest Good is the se- 
curing of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. This term 
has come to include the Epicureans, who also sought pleas- 
ure as Ta Agathon. Its chief advocates were Aristippus 
and Epicurus. There were Hedonists of the coarser and 
those of the more refined order. 





7. Aristotle was a member of “The Academy” until some time 
after Plato’s death, when he partially severed his connection with 
that school and founded a rival school known as “The Lyceum.” 
He is also known as the founder of the “Peripatetic” school, the 
word meaning “walking about.” The Aristotelian Ethics may be 
classified as follows: 1. Nichomachean Ethics, compiled by the phi- 
losopher’s son; 2. Eudemian Ethics, compiled by his pupil, Eudemus; 
3. “Magna Moralis,” perhaps compiled from both the preceding. 


42 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


However, in all cases the theory is fundamentally wrong, 
for in true Ethics the first question always should be, “Is it 
right?” not, “Will it bring pleasure?” That is, the right 
and the pleasure-giving should not be identified ; for it often 
happens that pleasure must be denied and sacrificed in order 
to walk uprightly. Ultimately joy will no doubt be the 
consequence of the truly ethical life; but even in that case 
the joy is the result or the product of Ota being and en- 
deavor, not the reverse. 


6. STOICISM: 


In Stoicism the Greeks and Romans attained to their 
highest ethical ideals. Its chief advocates were Antis- 
thenes, Zeno, Seneca, Cicero, Epictetus and Marcus Aure- 
lius. Their maxim was, Virtue for virtue’s sake. 


While it was an idealistic view, it was stated abstractly, 
and would require the definition of virtue. Moreover, it 
went to the opposite extreme from Hedonism, and affected 
to despise all pleasure. Thus it led to rigorism, asceticism 
and stoical endurance. In contrast, Christian morality, 
while it holds to the doctrine that “virtue is its own excuse 
for being,” yet does not contemn the right kind of joy when 
it is the product of the true life. Nor does it think that the 
desire for pure joy contaminates the motives in the pursuit 
of the truly ethical life. Christian morality does not make 
a virtue of being miserable merely for the sake of being so. 
When true righteousness and pleasure go hand in hand, the 
Christian rejoices in the fact and thanks God for the har- 
monious combination.® 





8. The Cynics (not mentioned in the text, but in footnote 5 
above) might be called an extreme wing of the Stoical school. They 
became scornful. The word Cynic (from the Greek kunos, a dog) 
refers to a surly, snarling habit. 


9. For an admirable critique on Greek and Roman ethics, see 
Harris E. Kirk, The Religion of Power, pp. 81-143. 


Theoretical Ethics 43 


7. DIVINE ABSOLUTISM. 


This theory grounds the right solely in the will of God. 
It was the view of the Scotists in the Middle Ages. The 
Mohammedan view is practically the same. The better 
view, as has been shown in a previous section of this work, 
is that the right is grounded in both the holy nature and 
will of God. Thus the right is not dependent on the arbi- 
trary choice of God, but is eternal, just as is the being of 
God Himself. 


8. Civit AUTHORITY. 


In this view the State is the ultimate authority. It has 
its roots in Plato’s Republic. It was advocated by Thomas 
Hobbes in his Leviathan. 


The Christian view is more adequate. It teaches that 
men should “render unto Caesar the things that are Cae- 
sar’s,’ and that they should “be subject to the powers that 
be;” yet it does not hold that any human beings, even though 
they may be civil rulers, have such absolute authority that 
they must in every instance be obeyed. As a rule they 
should be, but there are exceptional circumstances in which 


men “ought to obey God rather than man.” 


9, ALTRUISM. 


This means “otherism” (from alter, other). In its ex- 
treme form, it would be impossible, utopian, for no man 
can forget himself utterly in his service for others. In this 
form it is, therefore, not practical. 


However, when put in opposition to selfishness and ego- 
tism, Altruism is correct, and that is the sense in which it 
is generally used. The Bible inculcates the well-balanced 
principle: “Love thy neighbor as thyself ;’ “Do unto others 
as you would have others do unto you.” Here the proper 


44 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


balance between self-love and other-love is upheld, proving 
the teaching of the Bible to be sound and sane. 


10. UTILITARIANISM. 


As the term indicates, Utilitarianism in Ethics is the 
theory that the Highest Good is simply and solely the use- 
ful, the beneficial; therefore there is no absolute law of 
right per se, nor is the right to be cherished and practiced 
for its own sake. Sometimes this is called “the goods 
theory,” because it looks only for the advantages in any 
course of conduct. In modern phrase, it is Pragmatism in 
Ethics. The criticisms of this theory are the following: 


a. It is superficial; it does not seek for the Ultimate 
Source of the Good, but is apparently indifferent to it. It 
is non-theistic. 


b. It does not accord with the testimony of conscience, 
which feels the sense of obligation to duty and righteousness. 


c. It reverses the relative order of the right and the 
useful. Ultimately, acording to the Christian faith and 
hope, the right and the useful will be in perfect agreement; 
but even then the proper distinction will be made in this 
way: A thing is useful because it is right, not, A thing is 
right because it is useful. 


d. If the right and the useful are to be identified, why 
do men almost universally agree in calling some things right 
and others wrong, thus inserting the ethical conception? 
Such words as “right” and “wrong” are unnecessary in that 
case, and are merely an encumbrance to life and thought. 
We have plenty of terms to designate the useful and the 
beneficial; but the general consciousness and conscience of 
mankind require a number of ethical terms to differentiate 
moral ideas from all other conceptions. 


Theoretical Ethics 45 


e. The utilitarian theory is subversive of disinterested 
motives. Instead of leading men to ask first of all, Is it 
right? it leads them to insert the selfish thought, Will it be 
profitable to me? 


11. OPpporTUNISM. 


In its good sense this term means the ability to seize the 
opportunity. In the bad sense—the one in which it is gen- 
erally used—it means the disposition to seize every chance 
for self-advancement. Hence Opportunism is at heart 
Hedonistic and Utilitarian. It means taking advantage of 
time and circumstance to further one’s own interests. It 
is therefore subversive of true ethics. It is a term often 
used in the conduct of public affairs—in the political sphere. 


12. NATURALISTIC EVOLUTION. 


Of course, this theory is atheistic. It holds that the ma- 
terial cosmos is eternal, and that its present status is the 
result of mere development by the operation of purely nat- 
ural forces and according to natural laws. In connection 
with Agnosticism, it has given rise to a utilitarian scheme 
of morality, its best known exponent having been Herbert 
Spencer, who developed his views in his well-known work, 
The Data of Ethics. 

Its cardinal principle is this: In the evolution of the hu- 
man race, some kinds of conduct were found to be benefi- 
cial to the social organism, perhaps the primitive tribe, and 
these in course of time came to be called right; while other 
kinds of conduct were found to be harmful, and they have 
come to be called wrong. Thus the terms right and wrong 
are identified with the useful and the harmful. Nothing 
is either right or wrong per se. 

In reply, it must be said that this is a very superficial 
treatment of ethical data and experiences: 


46 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


a. Why should the terms, right and wrong, have been 
introduced into human language, if they do not stand for 
special concepts? Then they are tautological; they are 
simply an encumbrance to thought. 


b. The theory goes back to material and impersonal sub- 
stance for its ethical foundation, and that is absurd, for 
mere substance cannot possess ethical quality. As has al- 
ready been shown in this work, the moral can be attributed 
only to rational personalities. Hence the Ultimate Ground 
of the Good must be a Person—God. 


c. It is inconsistent with both philosophy and science to 
suppose that the non-moral could evolve, by means of resi- 
dent forces, into the moral, because that would be getting 
something out of nothing. Ex nihilo mhil fit, is as true 
today as it was among the ancients. 


d. The theory of evolution has never been established 
scientifically. Scientists cannot account for the origin of 
matter, force, life, sentiency, species, personality, self-con- 
sciousness, conscience and spiritual experience. No case 
of spontaneous generation has ever been brought forward, 
but the law of biogenesis holds the field today among the 
biologists who stick to the facts. The same is true of the 
transmutation of one species into another and of animals 
into human and rational beings. 


13. THuetstic EvoLuTIon. 
This view is held in two forms: 


First, in the beginning God created the pristine material ; 
in doing this, He endowed material substance with all the 
potencies needed for its subsequent development, including 
the personal, ethical and spiritual outcome; then He left 
the universe to be controlled and unfolded by secondary 
causes, namely, the “laws of nature.” This is practically 


Theoretical Ethics 47 


the old view of Deism, transferred to the theory of modern 
evolution. 


Second, God created the primordial material in its simple 
or homogeneous form; then, instead of deserting it, He re- 
mained immanent in it ; since the original creation, His mode 
of operating in the cosmos has been through the laws of 
progressive evolution. Therefore, according to this view, 
evolution is simply the divine modus operandi, and God is 
practically identified with natural laws, forces and processes. 


The theory of Deism first named above is open to most 
serious objection from the ethical viewpoint. It virtually 
pushes God out of His universe, and gives it up to second- 
ary causes; thus it leaves so little room for freedom that 
the moral factor diminishes to the minimum, if it does not 
vanish entirely. A God who retires from His creation, 
abdicates His throne in favor of mere laws, and takes a 
long vacation, while His people are carrying on an unequal 
struggle in the world with the forces of evil, surely is not 
a God who would be likely to inspire moral effort and en- 
thusiasm in the minds of His far-off, neglected foster chil- 
dren. No human father would thus forsake his offspring. 
How much better is the Christian view! 


Regarding the second theory, that of theistic evolution, 
if it should ultimately be proven to be true scientifically, it 
would not invalidate the ethical reality of the world; for the 
personal God, the Creator, would be its Source and Ground, 
and, being immanently active in the cosmos, would be the 
personal executor of the law of righteousness implanted 
therein and in the consciences of men. 


The question, therefore, to be settled is simply this: Has 
it been scientifically established that pure evolution is God’s 
method of working in the universe? To put it more con- 


48 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


cretely, is there sufficient empirical evidence that life was 
evolved from material substance by resident physico-chem- 
ical forces and combinations without the introduction of 
anything new at any point in the process; that all the genera 
and species of the vegetable and animal kingdoms have been 
evolved from a single primordial germ or cell; that man 
has been evolved from the lower animals; that conscious- 
ness, sentiency, conscience and will have evolved in this 
way; that in all this process, running through cycles and 
milleniums, God has never added any new force or sub- 
stance to the original act of creation? 


Let it be remembered that if, at any point in the whole 
process, God brought into existence any new force or en- 
tity, that would be an act of creation, not a process of evo- 
lution. 


The author has often felt that the term, “theistic evo- 
lution,” is inaccurate, unscientific, and illogical. After all, 
does not scientific evolution mean a process of unfolding 
by means of purely resident or tmmanent forces? But if 
God carried on the process, He must have been constantly 
infusing new energy into it from without, or there could 
have been no progress. Would that have been evolution 
in the strictly scientific sense? We think not. It is a wrong 
use of the term. 


Our thesis here, however, is especially concerned with 
the data of morality, and so we submit a few considerations. 
All theists agree that God first created the primordial ma- 
terial substance. However, it must have been mere im- 
personal substance, mere stuff, mere thing. Now, since 
morality can inhere only in rational personalities, could God 
have endowed mere impersonal stuff with a moral quality? 
We ourselves, limited as our rational powers are, never 


Theoretical Ethics 49 


think of attributing morality to slime, or mud, or a clod, or 
a stone, or even an animal. Should it be held that God, 
being all-powerful, could have endowed mere material sub- 
stance with seminal moral qualities, our reply is: It would 
have been absurd and even puerile for Him to work in so 
crude a way. 


A far more rational procedure would, we think, have 
been the following: God created the material universe, un- 
folded it according to His own wisdom, adding something 
new whenever an entity of a higher order was to be brought 
into being, and at last, when the world was ready for occu- 
pancy by human personalities, He created them, enduing 
them, in that very act, with those moral qualities which in- 
here in beings of so highly organized a type. Taking all 
the facts into consideration, we must leave the reader to 
decide whether this view is not the most reasonable.?° It 
certainly is in accord with Christian teaching. 


Thus we have reviewed the various systems of Ethics, 
both ancient and modern, and have, we think, reached the 
conclusion that the theistic world-view is the only one that 
affords a sufficient rational and scientific basis, ground and 
explanation of the ethical data of the cosmos. 


10. The foregoing Humanistic Theories have been somewhat 
more fully treated in the author’s A System of General Ethics, pp. 
56-81. Perhaps the classical Christian works which compare Chris- 
tian moral teaching with the ethical principles of the ethnic religions 
and the various philosophical systems are Wuttke, Christian Ethics, 
Vol. I, and Luthardt, History of Christian Ethics. 


DIVISION III 


THE ETHICAL LAW 
(The Law of Right) 


CHAPTER IV 


Pe CON NEC ENG? BENS: 


1. Gop CREATED A COSMOS. 


In our last main division we dealt with the Ultimate 
Source of the Right and the Good, and found it to be the 
eternal personality of God. We must now inquire whether 
God was satisfied to be forever the sole Being, or whether 
He created a universe with rational beings in it, who could 
have moral and spiritual fellowship with Himself. At once 
we discover that He pursued the latter course; for the cos- 
mos is here; we see it and touch it, and know ourselves as 
a part of it. 


2. HE CREATED IT A MorAL Economy. 


Since God is a righteous Being, since, indeed, He must 
be the Source of Right, it is reasonable to believe that He 
would inscribe upon the created universe a moral law, 
would make it a moral economy, would not be satished to 
make it a mere mechanism. This is, of course, the a priori 
method of argument, but it surely is reasonable, while the 
mechanistic view has already been found to be inadequate 
and unsatisfactory. 


Theoretical Ethics 51 


Besides, when we come to view the world, we find many 
empirical proofs that it is a moral regime; that the ethical 
law is inscribed upon the creation. Let us note: 


tee KOOKS OF oA MORATA ORDERYIN- NATURE, 


1., (HE REIGN oF Law. 


That this is a world of law need not be argued in these 
scientific days. Surely, then, any kind of a uniform order 
must connote a lawgiver, and that would lead back to God. 
If the universe were a mere happen-so, it would not be a 
cosmos, but a chaos. But why was the creation placed 
under the regularity of law? No sufficient reason can be 
assigned than that such an economy would be the only kind 
in which rational and moral beings could live and function. 


And the outcome shows that moral beings are here. 


2. DESIGN IN NATURE. 

That there is purpose in the natural realm ought to need 
little or no argument. In proof read any good work on 
Natural Theism. But design connotes intelligence, and in- 
telligence connotes personality—a mode of reasoning that 
leads back to God. And why was purpose writ so large 
upon the cosmos? Because the coming ethical beings could 
live and function only in an economy of purpose and adap- 
tation. The sequel proves that the world was made to be 
the dwelling-place of moral beings. 


3. THE NATURAL REALM A MorAt ARENA FOR MAN. 

Did the Ultimate Being create moral agents and place 
them in the cosmos? This question answers itself, for men 
are here in the world, living and functioning in an ethical 
way. 

And simply because the cosmos is under law and is 


BZ A Manual of Christian Ethics 


adapted to fulfil a specific purpose, we see that it is consti- 
tuted to be an arena for man’s moral activity. This is as 
plain, we think, as that a stadium was made for athletic 
purposes. For example, the natural realm affords man 
many opportunities for making choices, and his power of 
choice fits into this regime. Not only can man exercise 
natural options, but he can and often must elect between 
good and evil, right and wrong; and in such exercise of his 
freedom nature affords him the stadium and opportunity. 


Thus, from a process of reasoning, we conclude that the 
world, with its human inhabitants, is a moral economy, 
ruled by its Creator according to the law of right. It will 
now be our privilege to note the Biblical teaching regarding 
this thesis, and see how perfectly it accords with what rea- 
son teaches. It might be added at this point that our 
rational processes have been greatly aided and assured be- 
cause, all the while, we have been working in the light of 
the divine revelation in the Bible. Certainly reason could 
not walk so firmly if it had nothing but the ethnic religions 
and the dim light of nature to guide it. 


iI. BIBLICAL TEACHING REGARDING THE 
MORAL LAW. 


1. THe NARRATIVE OF CREATION. 

At the close of each epoch (Genesis 1), God pronounced 
the work that He had done good (Hebrew, tov), and finally 
very good (tov meod). In this connection the term good 
must include moral good as well as physical, because man 
was created in the divine similitude. The Hebrew adjec- 
tive tov connotes moral good in many contexts of the Bible. 


2. THE FORBIDDEN TREE. 
This tree was called “the tree of the knowledge of good 


Theoretical Ethics 55 


and evil.” This designation indicates how early moral dis- 
tinctions were made in the Holy Scriptures. The inhibi- 
tion placed upon it also proves that the progenitors of the 
race were placed under moral law immediately after their 
creation. The world, therefore, is represented by the Bible 
in one of its earliest sections as a moral economy. 


6] 


3. THE FALL oF MAN. 

The fact that as soon as man disobeyed the divine com- 
mand he fell—that is, became conscious of his wrong-do- 
ing—proves that he had been placed under the moral law. 
The same fact is implied in the penalty visited upon him. 


4. PROVIDENTIAL DEALINGS IN BriBLicAL History. 

Whenever nations did right in the sight of God, He be- 
stowed upon them His favor, and commended their con- 
duct. On the other hand, wrong-doing was always con- 
demned and punished. Again these facts point to an ob- 
jective moral law. 


5. Ture DECALOGUE. 
The Ten Commandments, given under most solemn and 
impressive conditions, set forth the law of God, in which 


the right is approved and the wrong condemned, with the 
proper sanctions attached. 


6. THE SERMON ON THE Mount. 

This portion of the Word is usually regarded as a deepen- 
ing and spiritualizing of the moral law announced on Sinai. 
It goes to the heart of the ethical principles in its dealing 
with man. “Blessed are the poor in spirit;” “Blessed are 
the pure in heart.” The law of right is here given. 


7. NUMEROUS PRECEPTS AND ADAGES. 


The Bible is replete with wise and wholesome moral 
maxims, all of which clearly recognize the law of righteous- 


54 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


ness. Only a few of these need be given. “I will medi- 
tate in thy law day and night;” “O how I love thy law;” 
“T hate them that are of a double mind, but thy law do I 
love;’ “Thy law have I hid in my heart that I might not sin 
against thee ;’ Paul said that “the law is good,” even though 
men cannot be saved by it. The heathen have the law writ- 
ten upon their hearts. 


8. THE PLAN oF REDEMPTION. 


So holy and majestic is the moral law that God could 
not forgive men by a mere fiat, but sent His eternally be- 
gotten Son into the world, to be born of a woman, born 
under the law, that He might redeem them that are under 
the law, and thus make them sons of God. It was love and 
mercy, it is true, that moved the Father to send the Son 
and the Son to become incarnate; but it was the holy law 
of divine justice —a structural part of the universe as a 
moral economy — that required divine love to redeem sin- 
ful man by the expiation made by the incarnate Son of God, 
who is the source and foundation of the moral law. All 
of this indicates clearly how deeply the writers of the Bible 
were led by the Holy Spirit to recognize the law of right in 
the world. 


We are now prepared to consider the moral agents whom 
God created and placed in the cosmos under the law of right. 


IV. MORAL AGENTS UNDER THE LAW. 
1. DEFINITIONS. 
(1) Of Moral Agency. 


Moral agency is the ability of a personal being to per- 
ceive the right and the wrong and to choose between them. 


Theoretical Ethics 55 


(2) Of a Moral Agent. 
A moral agent is a person who is able to perceive the 
right and the wrong and to choose between them. 


2. ANGELS AS MorAt AGENTS. 

The doctrine of angels (Angelology) belongs to the dis- 
cipline of Christian Dogmatics. In examining the teaching 
of the Scriptures, it seems to be plain that angels were the 
first rational beings created. They may have been “the sons 
of God who shouted for joy” in the morning of the crea- 
tion. We read of angels who “kept not their first estate.” 
Our concern here is with their ethical character and con- 
duct. 


(1) Thew Created Status. 

They evidently were perfect as to moral quality. The 
previous citation, “the angels who kept not their first es- 
tate,’ would plainly indicate that they were created with 
original righteousness. Nor were they mere automata. 
Had they been, some of them could not have fallen. They 
were moral agents, with their wills at perfect equilibrium 
between good and evil, so that they could choose one alterna- 
tive or the other. Reason would teach that it was better for 
God to create free moral beings than mere happy machines 
or automata. For everything that is worth while some risk 
is incurred. In order to make creatures who could attain 
real moral excellence, which is the highest kind of excel- 
lence of which we can form any conception, God created 
free beings. This is the justification of God in making this 
adventure. 

(2) A Test Necessary. 

That a test is essential is implied in the very nature of 
moral agency. Without an adequate ordeal of some kind, 
it would have been futile to create moral agents. Indeed, 


56 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


it is doubtful if such an act were possible, even for God, 
who would not work an absurdity. Therefore some kind 
of a trial must have come to the angels after their creation. 
What it was is not revealed, but perhaps it was pride, ambi- 
tion, envy — perhaps jealousy of God and His sovereign 
rule. This spirit led to rebellion, and thus Satan and his 
followers were cast out of heaven. 


On the other hand, the moral status of the good angels 
is this: Having successfully passed through the ordeal set 
before them, they, by their own choice, incorporated their 
created righteousness in their own characters, and thus es- 
tablished themselves in holiness forever, having attained 
the highest freedom, the power always to do the right with 
no outer compulsion. But the angels who rebelled intro- 
duced into their characters by their own volition the ele- 
ment of evil, so that they are in the bondage of sin, perhaps 
forever, as we read nowhere in the Holy Scriptures that 
redemption is possible for them. 


3. MAN as A MoRAL AGENT. 


(1) Created in the divine image, he must have been 
righteous in the beginning of his career. It is reasonable 
to believe that God would have made him so, for surely we 
cannot believe that He would have created a sinful crea- 
ture. The Bible represents man as innocent in his first 
estate — perhaps it would be more positive to say that he 
was created in a state of moral integrity. Morally there 
was nothing defective about him, 


It was but fair, too, that, if man was to be created, he 
should be made without moral fault or weakness, or an 
evil strain, and then placed in the midst of a favorable en- 
vironment — represented in the Bible as the garden of Eden 
with all its beauty and fruitfulness. Surely that is a nobler 


Theoretical Ethics 57 


conception than the doctrine that he was developed in a 
jungle and was engaged for many millennia in a bloody 
struggle for existence. Would that have been a moral 
regime —a bloody pathway in which the strongest and 
subtlest survived. If progress came by that process through- 
out the cycles of the past, why should not the same gory 
route lead to progress now? Could a fierce and selfish 
struggle for existence ever have evolved into its precise 
opposite, the rule and fellowship of altruistic love? Can 
something evolve out of nothing? Can a higher quality 
evolve out of a lower? 


(2) The Power of Choice. 


Again we are brought face to face with the problem of 
moral agency. From the very language used in the Biblical 
description of our first parents’ original condition, it is plain 
that they were created with the power of choice. They 
were bidden to eat of all the trees of the garden except one 
—the tree of forbidden fruit. If they had no volitional 
power, such an inhibition would have been puerile. So it 
is clear that man was not created a mere automaton; that 
he was endued with that high prerogative known as liberty, 
the power of choice. The problem of freedom will be 
dealt with later on. 


(3) The moral test in Eden. 


As was said in the discussion concerning the angels, man, 
if he was to discipline and establish his moral character, 
must have had an adequate test. Since he was a physical 
being, the test took on a physical form, “the tree of the 
knowledge of good and evil,” and thus his temptation came 
to him as an integral being, appealing to both his mind and 
his body. This seems to be most reasonable; it lies in the 
very structure of things as we know them. 


58 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


(4) God’s subsequent treatment of the pair. 


It is evident that our first parents were moral agents, or 
it would have been unjust to punish them for their diso- 
bedience. Yet God cast them out of the garden, and cursed 
the ground on account of their sin, and compelled them 
afterward to live by the sweat of their face. The very ex- 
tent of the penalty assigned them indicates that sin is no 
light matter; also that the pair were under no compulsion 
to sin, but were free beings. 


4. CONSTITUENTS OF MORAL AGENCY. 


(1) Rational Intelligence. 


By this term is meant the normal functioning of the 
various powers of the mind. Only to beings thus consti- 
tuted can morality be attributed. We do not call inorganic 
substance moral, neither do we apply that term to plants 
and animals or to demented people. Only when people are 
sufficiently rational to know the difference between right 
and wrong do we hold them responsible for their conduct 
and regard them as moral beings. 


(2) Conscience. 

Conscience is that faculty of the human mind which per- 
ceives and senses the right and wrong and their funda- 
mental antagonism. 

Other terms are used to designate this faculty, namely, 
the Moral Consciousness, the Moral Faculty, the Moral 
Sense, the Moral Intuition. 

As to its etymology, it is derived from the Latin, con, 
with, and scio, to know; therefore to know with. Its de- 
rivation, however, scarcely gives a clue to its technical mean- 
ing. The term “Consciousness” is derived from the same 
stem; but it means awareness. By general agreement, how- 


Theoretical Ethics 59 


ever, the term “Conscience” has come to mean the moral 
faculty of the soul. 


It is a Scriptural term, occurring quite frequently in the 
New Testament. The Greek term for Conscience is sunet- 
desis, “a knowing with oneself.” Its usage in the New 
Testament indicates that it is recognized as the faculty for 
moral distinctions and values: “Being convicted by their 
own conscience’ (John 8:9); “I have lived in all good 
conscience’ (Acts 23:1); “Their conscience also bearing 
witness” (Rom. 2:15); “Their conscience, being weak, is 
defiled” (1 Cor. 8:7). The effect of sin upon the con- 
science is clearly recognized: “Having their conscience 
seared as with a hot iron” (1 Tim. 4:2). 


The fact that no specific term for the conscience is used 
in the Old Testament is no proof that the faculty was not 
recognized; for wherever man is commanded to do right 
and avoid the wrong and wherever moral distinctions are 
made, the implication is clear that such a faculty exists in 
man, or it could not have been appealed to. 


As to the origin of Conscience, both Christian Theology 
and Christian Ethics, based upon the Bible, teach that it is 
an inate faculty; an essential part, at least in potential 
form, of man’s mental structure as he came from the cre- 
ative hand of God (Gen. 1: 26,27). Reason confirms this 
doctrine; for if there ever was a time when man was abso- 
lutely non-moral, a moral faculty never could have been 
evolved; it must have been created by a supreme moral 
Being—God. The non-moral never could evolve, by means 
of resident forces, into the moral. Nothing can come from 
nothing. Conscience is not, therefore, an acquired func- 
tioning power, as many people hold today. 


That Conscience is a distinct faculty of the soul ought 


60 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


to require little argument. None of the other mental pow- 
ers have the same content and significance. When you ask 
the questions, “Is it right?” “Is it wrong?’ an appeal is 
made to a very specialized faculty of the mind; and there 
is no other faculty except the Conscience to react properly 
to these interrogations. Moreover, morality is of such out- 
standing importance to human well-being that it would in- 
deed be strange if the mind had no specialized faculty for 
moral facts and situations. 


As to the psychology of the Conscience, it will be seen, 
by studying the “Outline of the Human Mind” in Chapter 
II of this work, that it is found in two places. First, it is 
a perception — that is, it belongs to the intellectual power 
of the mind. We often say, “I perceive with my Con- 
science, or my Conscience perceives, that such and such a 
state or act is right or wrong, as the case may be.” In this 
place we call the Conscience the “Cognition of Right and 
Wrong; therefore a cognitive faculty. 

The Conscience also belongs to the emotional activities 
of the mind. We say rightly, “I feel in my Conscience that 
such an act is right.” Since the term is used currently in 
this dual sense, there is no reason why scientific Ethics 
should not recognize this common understanding. 

In the interest of scientific analysis we give here a table 
showing a classification of the ethical emotions: 


1: “CLASSES: 


(1) Moral love: delight in and approval of the right. 
(2) Moral aversion: hatred of the wrong. 
(3) Before an action: feeling of obligation or duty. 
(4) After an action: 

a. If right: approval, satisfaction, ethical joy. 

b. If wrong: disapproval, shame, guilt, remorse. 


Theoretical Ethics 61 


2. DEGREES OF INTENSITY: 
(1) Vary with heredity and temperament. 
(2) Vary with environment and education. 
(3) Vary with ethical effort or neglect. 


3. FEELING AS A MoTIvE Power: 

(1) It furnishes an incentive for right and wrong do- 
ing; mere cold perception would have no moving 
force. 

(2) Classes of right motives: 

a. Desire for the true benefits of righteousness. 
b. Love of the right for its own sake. 
c. Love of God as the true source of the good. 


Something needs to be said about the supremacy of the 
Conscience. In all moral situations it should be supreme, 
for it is the only power of the mind that has been endued 
by the Creator with the distinctive insight to react to the 
right and the wrong. Just as the eye is regnant in the 
realm of vision, the ear in the realm of hearing, the rea- 
soning faculty in the sphere of logic, so the Conscience must 
decide in the moral field. However, it should be remem- 
bered that the authority of Conscience is only advisory, not 
coercive. 

Although the Conscience should be supreme in the moral 
sphere, that does not mean that it is infallible. Just as the 
other faculties are limited and liable to err, even in their 
own special fields, so Conscience has its limitations. For 
this reason it should be enlightened and disciplined as much 
as possible, just as must all the other faculties. It would 
be strange if the other powers of the human mind were 
fallible and the Conscience alone infallible. If Conscience 
were thus endued, there would be no need of a special reve- 
lation from God, such as we have in the Bible. 


62 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


What is the relation of the Conscience to the other fac- 
ulties of the soul? First, it is dependent only on them for 
its ability to function: upon rational intelligence to enable 
it to act intelligently; upon consciousness to give it a field 
of action; upon the will to carry out its decisions. Second, 
the other powers are dependent on the Conscience to en- 
able them to function ethically; otherwise no distinction 
could be made between right and wrong conduct and states. 
Indeed, a right view of psychology holds that all the mental 
powers are integrally related and mutually dependent. One 
faculty cannot say to another, “I have no need of you.” 


CHAPTER V 


IV. MORAL AGENTS (continued). 


4. CONSTITUENTS OF Morat AGENCY (continued). 

(3) The Will. 

The Will is the self-determining power of the mind. 
Other definitions are: the capacity of the mind to choose 
and execute; the autonomy of the Ego or Self. 


Everywhere in the Bible this capacity is recognized either 
explicitly or implicitly. Man is nowhere treated as if he 
were a mere automaton, run by machinery or placed in an 
ironclad regime of necessity. Everything that has been 
said on previous pages about his having been created a 
moral agent will apply to this thesis. When our first par- 
ents were commanded to eat of the fruit of the garden and 
were forbidden to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good 
and evil, the situation connotes, ipso facto, that man was 
endued with the power of choice. Every command, every 
exhortation, every appeal in the Bible, implies freedom of 
the will. “Look unto me, all ye ends of the earth, and be 
ye saved,” would be an absurd exhortation if man were 
in the grip of determinism. Christ said to the hardened 
Pharisees and Scribes, “Ye will not come unto me that ye 
might have life.’ This spells conative ability. Thus the 
Bible is against the crude theory of determinism. 


The Will has certain unique powers: a. The power of 
attention; b. The power of originating motion and action; 


64 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


c. The power of alternate choice; d. The power of execu- 
tion. No entity, as far as we know, is in possession of 
these peculiar powers save a rational mind with the endue- 
ment of freedom. 


Freedom is a sine qua non of moral agency. This ought 
to be plain to every thinker. If the Ego has no power of 
choice, it is in the grip of necessity, and hence cannot be 
ethical in any true sense of the term. Then Conscience 
would be like a nominal sovereign, sitting upon a throne 
with no power to execute its behests and decisions. 


At this point a few terms should be defined. The hy- 
pothesis that denies the freedom of the Will is called De- 
termimsm or Necessitariamsm. The view that the Will 
is free within its divinely prescribed limits is known as 
Libertarianism. Sometimes the term /ndeterminism is em- 
ployed to designate the conception that the Will is in no- 
wise determined or influenced by environment, heredity and 
other conditions. This last term indicates an extreme posi- 
tion on the side of liberty, just as Determinism is an extreme 
on the side of the bondage of the Will. 

The Christian system has a special contribution to make 
regarding this important thesis, the freedom of the Will. 
In matters of civil or conventional morality (called “civil 
righteousness”), it upholds the Will’s freedom. It never 
teaches that man is merely the catspaw of circumstances. 





1. Herbert Spencer was an exponent of Determinism. We quote 
from his Principles of Psychology, Vol. I, p. 503: “Psychical changes 
either conform to law or they do not. If they do not conform to 
law, this work, in common with all works on the subject, is sheer 
nonsense; no science of psychology is possible. If they do conform 
to law, there cannot be any such thing as free will.” Of course, 
when a man has no higher conceptions of law and causality than 
mere physical and mechanical force, he cannot grasp the idea of 
freedom, whose laws belong to a higher realm, that of the psychical 
and ethical. 


Theoretical Ethics 65 


He is capable, in this sphere, of doing many things that are 
either right or wrong. 


However, in the spiritual realm the Bible teaches that 
man’s Will is in bondage since the Fall of Adam; that it 
“can in nowise set itself free;’ that no man can save him- 
self ; that, indeed, in spiritual matters man “is dead in tres- 
passes and sins’ (Eph. 2:1). Therefore he needs to be 
“quickened,”’ aroused, delivered from his bondage, before 
his will is able to function in the true spiritual sense. Un- 
der the subject of sin more will be said on this theme. In 
the following discussion we are speaking of civil freedom 
and civil righteousness, or what may be called “conven- 
tional morality.” 


Among the proofs of the freedom of the Will, the follow- 
ing may be mentioned: 


a. The testimony of consciousness. In general men are 
just as vividly conscious of acts of self-determination as 
they are of any other acts that come within the field of 
knowledge. Why, then, deny the witness of the soul in this 
_ respect, the freedom of the Will? 


b. The test of experiment. Test yourself and see how 
many things you can do and think by conscious efforts of 
the Will. Lift your arm to a horizontal position; now to 
a perpendicular position; now let it drop to your side. Now 
make yourself think of the sun, of the moon, of Saturn, of 
the Pleiades; now think of truth, virtue, God. At every 
step you are conscious of having made a distinct effort 
through your volitional powers, and you are not conscious 
of any coercion either from without or from within. People 
who deny the freedom of the Will must have feeble powers 
of introspection. Their consciousness must have become 
blurred. 


66 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


c. The demands of man’s environment. In order to 
live in the natural world every one of us must make in- 
numerable choices. Human society and human govern- 
ment are largely based on the postulate of freedom. 


d. The mind intuitively differentiates between free and 
forced acts. If a student were put out of the classroom by 
force, he would not tell you that he walked out “by his own 
free will and accord.” 


e. The Determinist himself cannot live in this world 
and be consistent with his theory. He acts as if he were 
free, and demands that other people act in the same way. 
He even criticizes others for rejecting his views. Let us 
not adopt a philosophy by which we cannot live. 


We cannot help feeling amused at Mr. Thilly’s efforts 
to prove the deterministic view and disprove the libertarian 
view :? “The deterministic theory is not, however, a dis- 
couraging and paralyzing doctrine. On the contrary, the 
knowledge that we are determined must determine us to 
avoid certain conditions, and seek others more favorable.” 
The very words “avoid” and “seek’’ connote the power of 
free choice, and prove that, as we have said, it is impossible 
for the Determinist to be logically consistent. 


f. No one can estimate the harmful results of Deter- 
minism if it should once inoculate society; for then every 
crime could be excused on the ground that the perpetrator 
“couldn’t help it.’ 





2. Introduction to Ethics, pp. 337, 338. 


3. A professor in a well-known State University (tax-supported) 
recently advocated Determinism, declaring that it was the only “sci- 
entific’ view. He even went so far as to assert that criminals were 
not responsible for their evil deeds. Do the people who support our 
public schools want their young people to be infected with such doc- 
trine? 


Theoretical Ethics 67 


g. It is true that man’s freedom is limited. He cannot 
do everything. If he could, he would be omnipotent like 
God. But this is no argument against the view that he has 
freedom within the divinely prescribed limits. Because a 
man does not know everything is no reason for saying that 
he knows nothing. Because a man is not omnipotent is no 
reason for calling him impotent. 


h. The mystery of freedom of choice is no objection to 
the doctrine. Sense perception, as Huxley showed in his 
day, is an inexplicable mystery. So is emotion. It is not 
necessary to know the how of freedom, but only the fact 
of freedom.* 


i. Even though, in the spiritual sense, the will is in bond- 
age to sinful depravity, it has not been annihilated. It 1s 
still there in nuce and in potentia; therefore it can be quick- 
ened and disenthralled by the Holy Spirit operating through 
the law and the gospel. Thus there is hope of ethical res- 
toration for every sinner, no matter how much he may be 
in bondage to sinful habit.° 


(4) Motives or Intentions. 
a. Definition. 


A motive or intention is the reason why a moral agent 
4. Note Tennyson’s acute lines in De Profundis: 


“This main miracle: That thou art thou, 
With power on thine own act and on the world.” 


5. It would be well early in life to adopt this bracing motto: _ 
“I’m the captain of my soul, UT an = f 
I’m the master of my fate. ‘) _ 


Emerson has given us a bracing quatrain: 
“For He that ruleth high and wise, 
Nor pauseth in His plan, 
Will tear the sun out of the skies, 
Ere freedom out of man.” 


68 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


lives and acts as he does. It is the purpose of his life and 
conduct, the end he has in view. 

b. Motives essential to moral agency. 

Psychologically the motives belong to the reason and the 
emotions. They do not lie in the Will itself; they impel 
the Will. They are essential to moral agency, because the 
man who would live and act without any motives would 
hardly be a rational being; he would perhaps be a moron 
or a lunatic. 

c. Varied relations of motives. 

Respecting the Will, they influence but do not coerce it. 
To put it alliteratively, so that it will be remembered: mo- 
tives impel, but do not compel, the Will. In relation to 
the actor, they determine his moral character, whether 
it is good or bad. In regard to action, they do not 
determine its moral character, for an act that is right 
in itself may be performed from an impure motive, and 
vice versa. We might say that the motive, if it is right, 
“makes the actor fine,” but not necessarily the action. 

In practical matters, therefore, we should deal with 
people in this way: If a person does a good act from a pure 
motive, we should commend both his act and his motive. 
If he does a good act from a wrong motive, we should ap- 
prove his act, but condemn and correct his motive. If he 
does a wrong act from a good motive, we should correct the 
act, but commend the motive. If he does a wrong act from 
a wrong motive, we should disapprove of both act and 
motive. 

d. Various kinds of motives. 

Men are variously motivated. Some motives are evil, 
and only evil continually. They are selfish, sordid, impure, 
hypocritical. 


Theoretical Ethics 69 


Other motives may, in this complex world, be mixed — 
partly good and partly evil. Cases may be easily perceived 
in which a man’s intentions are a complex of egotism and 
altruism. Perhaps there are few people in this sinful world 
who are actuated by absolutely pure motives. Even the 
best and most spiritually minded people must often lament 
the fact that self and selfish desire far too often discolor the 
motives of their thinking and conduct. 


Yes, we must constantly pray for mercy and forgiveness, 
and cry to God to rinse our motives from impurity. 


e. The highest motive. 


In Christian Ethics it does not seem to be difficult to de- 
termine the highest motive that can impel our life and con- 
duct. It is undoubtedly grateful love to God for all His 
mercies and benefits, especially in redeeming us from sin. 
“We love, because He first loved us;” “The love of Christ 
constraineth us;’ “Herein is love; not that we loved God, 
but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitia- 
tion for our sins.” Paul speaks of “faith which worketh 
by love.” This designates the same motive as when he ex- 
claims, “For me to live is Christ.” He also says: “And 
hope maketh not ashamed, because the love of God is shed 
abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost who is given unto 
us.” May God lift us by His cleansing grace and power 
to that plane where all our service will be motivated by 
grateful love to Him! 


CHAPTER VI 


V-- JUSTIFICATION VOR. BIS EG) ered es 


1. Irs SpecraL Merits. 
(1) Revealed clearly yet progressively. 


Everywhere in the Bible the high ethical standard is up- 
held. Somehow, you feel at once, in reading the opening 
chapters of the Bible, that you are in the presence of an 
absolute law of right. The bars are nowhere let down. 
Already in the forbidden tree we see clear moral distinc- 
tions. In the treatment of Cain “sin croucheth at the door.” 
The antediluvians were punished because “every imagina- 
tions of their heart” was evil. And so on through the Bible. 


And yet the righteous will of God was revealed more 
and more explicitly as time moved on and as dispensations 
followed in succession. While the absolute standard was 
inculcated, yet the same standards of practice were not re- 
quired of men in the childhood and youth of the race as 
were required when the fuller revelation came. Just as in 
the home the law of right is upheld, and yet small children 
are not put under the same regime as those who have 
reached the age of responsibility or maturity. As the race 
developed, the requirements of the law of God became 
more clearly revealed. Everywhere men are to be judged 
according to their light — “according to that which they 
have, and not according to that which they have not.” The 
revelation became clearer throughout the Old Testament 


Theoretical Ethics real 


dispensation until it culminated “in the fullness of time” 
in the coming of the Son of God, who revealed the perfect 
will of God. Whether we can explain the process or not, 
the perfect standard is everywhere maintained, and yet 
there is a gracious divine accommodation to the need and 
unfolding of the human family. These facts will help to 
explain many supposed difficulties in the ethics of the Old 
Testament.* 


(2) Correlation of precepts and principles. 


In the Old Testament there are, it is true, many pre- 
cepts, rules and commandments. This method was neces- 
sary in the early history of the race, just as the same method 
is needed with children and young people in the home and 
the school. They must often be told in detail just what to 
do and not to do. Any parent or teacher knows this to be 
an eles 


And yet even in the Old Testament fundamental prin- 
ciples are laid down. They are in the commandments 
themselves, in the Psalms, the Proverbs and the prophecies. 
The general principle of righteousness is constantly en- 
joined, and many times without entering into details and 
laying down minute rules. “The Lord knoweth the way 
Sraperentcous (Ps. 1:6) 3 "'Create in ine a clean: heart, 
O God, and renew a right spirit within me” (Ps. 51:10); 
“Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall 
stand in His holy place? He that hath clean hands and a 
pure heart” (Ps. 24: 3, 4). 





1. On Biblical difficulties in general, see the following works: 
Haley, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible; Tuck, A Handbook of 
Biblical Difficulties; Torrey, Difficulties in the Bible; Gray, Bible 
Problems Explained; Scofield, Question Box; Ingram, Old Testa- 
ment Difficulties; New Testament Difficulties; Popular Objections 
to Christianity. 


72 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


All these are fundamental principles of life. In this way 
slavery, even though temporarily permitted by the Mosaic 
legislation, was so regulated by principles of human justice 
and equality, that it was gradually elided from the Juda- 
istic system. 


In the New Testament there is no legalism. Of course, 
some rules were necessary even then, and they are scat- 
tered through the gospels and epistles, because even under 
the dispensation of the gospel and of the Holy Spirit, they 
are needed; but much more do the broad foundational 
ethical principles prevail. The redeemed and regenerated 
Christian does not feel hampered and bound by minute and 
rigid regulations, but feels himself to be a free man indeed 
(Jn. 8:32, 36). In this way, too, slavery, though not ex- 
pressly forbidden, could not long prevail in Christian com- 
munities. The very equality and brotherhood created by 
the gospel of redeeming grace eliminated it.2. Thus the 
Christian system is very different from the legalism of so 
many other religious systems. It does not leave the ethical 
sphere in a state of ambiguity, on the one hand, nor does 
it burden the conscience with minutiae and perfunctory 
service, on the other. It reveals and teaches a wonderful 
correlation of precept and principle.* 


2. SoME MODERNISTIC CRITICISMS. 


Nearly all these criticisms of Biblical ethics are resur- 
gences of old infidel objections, and have been answered 
again and again by Christian Apologists. Nevertheless, 
they are being repeated today. The Biblical ethicist must 





2. See D’Arcy, Christian Ethics and Modern Thought, pp. 27-35. 


_3. Other merits of the Christian system of morality are dealt 
with throughout this volume, showing everywhere its high ideals 
and standards. 


Theoretical Ethics o> 


deal with them frankly. However, our limits of space will 
permit only a few of them to be dealt with pére+ 


(1) Polygamy im the Old Testament. 


The candid admission should be made that this is a real 
difficulty. Perhaps every Bible student has been puzzled 
about it. However, we should remember what has already 
been said, namely, that the ethical law of God was revealed 
progressively. Polygamy was never commanded in the 
Bible by God Himself. Indeed, the clear statement of Gen. 
2:23, 24 (referred to and interpreted by Christ in Matt. 19 
and Mark 10) indicates that the divine plan in the begin- 
ning was monogamous marriage. Perhaps polygamy was 
pemitted in the Old Testament (just as many other things 
were permitted), because God saw that it was best to work 
out gradually the correct principles rather than to set down 
the law specifically in every detail. It is also true that 
polygamy invariably wrought family trouble even among 
the patriarchs, and thus the race found out by experience 
that the lawful marriage of one man and one woman is the 
only right method. Surely Christ taught that monogamy 
was the divine plan. 

(2) Severity of punishment. 

Much fault has been found with the severity of the di- 
vine punishments in the Old Testament. From the days of 
Celsus, Porphyry, Lucian and Hierocles down to the present 
day, with infidels and liberalists these matters have been 
the chief stock in trade. 

Our reply is: No people in Oid Testament times were 
ever punished except for sin. Every nation that did right 
in the sight of God was blessed and prospered. Read the 





4. Consult the books on Biblical difficulties cited in footnote 1 
above. 


74 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


full history of the destruction of the antediluvians in the 
Noachian deluge, of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomor- 
rah, of the Canaanites, and all the rest, and see whether the 
fatal cause was not, in every case, their unspeakable iniq- 
uity. Recently a Modernist found fault with the Biblical 
statement regarding the destruction of the Canaanites.° But 
what reason does the Bible give? Here it is: “For the 
wickedness of these nations the Lord doth drive them out 
before thee” (Deut. 9: 4, 5) ; “Defile not ye yourselves with 
any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled 
which I cast out before you: and the land is defiled; there- 
fore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land 
itself vomiteth out her inhabitants” (Lev. 18:24, 25).°® 


Even if the Bible were not true, it is evident that any 
people who descend to such low practices as did those 
ancient people will sooner or later bring on their own de- 
struction by the very operation of nature’s laws. Critics 
would far better heed these terrible warnings and cease 
finding fault with the Bible. 


(3) The borrowing by the Israelites. 


A recent Biblical critic,’ who is also a teacher in a divin- 
ity school, or at least was a few years ago, has revamped 
this ancient infidel objection — that the children of Israel 
were instructed to “borrow” from their Egyptian neighbors 
with no intention of ever “bringing back what they bor- 





5. Fosdick, The Modern Use of the Bible, p. 89. And yet this 
writer believes in evolution, and therefore that nature made her 
grand progress from amoeba to man by means of the gory struggle 
for existence! He evidently forgot to read the reason why God 
destroyed the wicked Canaanites, as given in the proof passages 
cited in the text. 


6. See Torrey, ut supra, pp. 47-52. 
7. Bade, The Old Testament in the Light of To-day, pp. 73, 124. 


Theoretical Ethics fi 


rowed.” How much sympathy the critic seems to have 
with the Egyptians, and only criticisms of God’s ancient 
people! 

The answer has often been given. The Hebrew word 
for “borrow” simply means to “ask.’’ So there was no bor- 
rowimg at all; the Israelites asked for these gifts, and the 
Egyptians were disposed to be generous to their departing 
neighbors.® 


(4) The question of “Interim Ethics.” 


Several years ago Dr. Albert Schweitzer? brought the 
charge that the New Testament inculcated merely an “In- 
terim Ethics.” This means that Christ and His apostles 
taught a wholly apocalyptic view of the plan of God; that 
the end of the world was near at hand; hence they did not 
teach the principles of a permanent morality, intended for 
the guidance of long years of mundane life, but only a tem- 
porary morality that would prepare Christ’s followers for 
the impending crisis of His return to judge the people and 
destroy the world. It is the so-called “eschatological view” 
of Christianity. 


There is, of course, some truth in the doctrine. It is true 
that men are to live in expectation of the coming of Christ 
at some time, and such an expectation is an incitement for 
them to live righteously. However, our Lord taught that 
no man knew when the end of the world would occur; He 
even hinted that it might be long delayed. Therefore, while 
He and disciples clearly taught that men should always be 
prepared for His advent, they proceeded to teach a solid 





8. See Murphy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the 
Book of Exodus, p. 33; Keil and Delitzch, Biblical Commentary on 
the Old Testament, Vol. I, pp. 445, 446. 


9. In his The Quest of the Historical Jesus. 


76 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


ethic that would enable all men to plan and work in a well 
stabliized economy that would make it worth while for 
them to build up a permanent character and life. Men 
were not to be neglectful of the demands of the present life 
in order to prepare for the future.’ 


Thus both worldliness and other-worldliness are avoided 
by the Christian ethical teaching. “Godliness is profitable 
unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and 
of that which is to come.” 


(5) The negative and positive virtues. 


John Stuart Mill passed the criticism that Biblical Chris- 
tianity taught the negative virtues, but failed to emphasize 
those of a strong and positive character — a kind of passive 
morality. Meekness, inoffensiveness, love and gentleness 
— these were inculcated, he said, but not the virile charac- 
teristics of courage, uprightness, patriotism, and an aggres- 
sive and forceful personality.™ 


But Mr. Mill, as is usual with the critics, read only a part 
of the New Testament. It is true that in the early part of 
the gospels, as, for example, the Sermon on the Mount, the 
virtues of humility, contrition, poverty of spirit and purity 
of heart are taught; and that was right. These are the 
humble conditions of entrance into Christ’s kingdom, which 
will not admit human vanity, conceit and self-righteousness. 
But once entrance is gained into Christ’s kingdom, there is 
plenty of room and opportunity for the cultivation of all 
the virile principles of life. No one can be a weakling and 
be a true Christian. Christ taught by precept and example 
that men should be brave in time of danger; should never 


10. See D’Arcy, ut supra, pp. 14, 17, 25, 29. 


11. The opposite view is stoutly upheld by Bishop D’Arcy, ut su- 
pra, pp. 13-16. 


Theoretical Ethics 77 


“ec 


show the “white feather”; should be willing to die rather 
than to lie. The apostle said, “Provide things honest in 
the sight of all men; “Be diligent in business; “Prove 
all things; hold fast to that which is good;”’ “Be steadfast, 
unmoveable ;” “Be strong in the Lord and in the power of 
His might ;” “Put on the whole armor of God;”’ “Fight the 
good fight of faith.” 


The ethical teaching of the Bible has produced many 
heroes and heroines, who have braved every kind of danger, 
ridicule, abuse, persecution. Judged by its fruits, therefore, 
the Christian religion has ethical as well as spiritual ele- 
ments that produce sterling, stalwart and heroic character. 

Thus we believe that, by taking a broad historical view, 
by interpreting a spiritual book like the Bible in a spiritual 
way, and by laying aside the carping temper, the ethical 
teaching of the Bible throughout can be upheld and justified. 


DIVISION IV 


THE ETHICAL ANTITHESIS 
(Sin) 


CHAPTER VII 


TA CONNECUEN Gens. 


In our ethical plan we have thus far considered, first, 
the Source of Right, second, the Law of Right in the cre- 
ation. In the midst of our investigations something ad- 
verse has ever been implied and frequently mentioned. It 
has not been like a shadowy specter, but, rather, like a grim 
and terrible reality. We refer to the Antithesis of Right, 
namely, the Wrong, the Unethical, what we shall frankly 
call Sin. The very conception of the Right and of a moral 
economy, such as we have found the world to be, would 
connote at least the possibility, though not necessarily the 
actuality, of the Wrong. As the world is at present consti- 
tuted, we cannot think of the Right without thinking of its 
opposite. Looking at the world of humanity as it really 
is, no one can deny that the Wrong has come into the world 
and has created sad moral turbulence and havoc. 


If Christian Ethics—and this is also true of General 
Ethics — would aim to be thoroughgoing and scientific, it 
must treat of the Wrong as well as of the Right. 


Theoretical Ethics 79 


II. DEFINITION AND TERM. 


1. DEFINITION OF SIN. 


Sin 1s any principle, state or act that is contrary to the 
Law of Right, which is an expression of the holy nature 
and will of God. 


2. THe TERM SIN. 


In Theology the sub-division which treats of Sin is called 
Hamartology (from the Greek, hamartia, a missing, a fail- 
ure). Hence it is a missing of the mark set by the revela- 
tion of God. It is not a mere trifle, but wilful transgres- 
sion, involving guilt. It is not something that can be con- 
doned by a just and holy God. 


Pree ©) be sl N: 


i HE BIBLICAL. LEACHING. 


There is no book in the world that pictures sin in its ter- 
rible reality so fully as does the Bible. It is depicted “line 
upon line and precept upon precept.” Its heinous char- 
acter is shown by the punishment that was visited on our 
first parents after their disobedience in the Edenic garden. 
It brought a sad blight even upon the natural realm. Sin 
caused the first murder. It was the cause of the destruc- 
tion of the world by the Noachian deluge, of the inhabit- 
ants of Sodom and Gomorrah, of the Canaanites (Deut. 9: 
4,5), of the numerous instances of retribution visited upon 
the people of God. How sin is rebuked in the Psalms, the 
Proverbs and by all the prophets! 


In the New Testament the heinous nature of sin is not 
minimized. The reason for the incarnation and sacrifice 
of the eternal Son of God was to save the people from their 
sins (Matt. 1:21; 18:11; Luke 19:10). The sternest pun- 


80 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


ishments are denounced against sinners, even by our Lord 
Himself. Paul speaks of “the exceeding sinfulness of sin.” 
Indeed, the whole Bible bears testimony against sin. In 
this respect it is unique. 


2. THE UNIVERSAL EXPERIENCE OF THE RACE. 


With the teaching of the Bible agrees the consensus of 
the consciences of the human family. By whatever name 
it is known, and however varied may be the conceptions of 
sin among the races of mankind, all people seem to be con- 
scious of a schism in their very nature and of alienation 
from the supernatural powers that rule the world. Thus it 
is useless to try to develop a system of ethical data without 
recognition of the plain and turbulent fact of sin. We are, 
therefore, led logically to the discussion of a great and vital 
theme in an ethical system. 


3. Morar DISTINCTIONS. 

(1) Definition. 

Since this thesis is basic in Christian Ethics, we must be 
careful to define moral distinctions as accurately as possible: 


By moral distinctions we mean the fundamental differ- 
ence and antagomsm between right and wrong. 


Emphasis should be laid on the word “antagonism.” The 
right and the wrong are forever and ever opposed to each 
other; no truce can be declared between them. 

(2) Biblical Teaching. 

Here again the Bible is clear, as it is on all fundamen- 
tal matters. The distinction between right and wrong is 
never blurred. It appears in the prohibition in the garden 
of Eden, for the forbidden tree was expressly called “the 
tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” How explicit 
was the distinction at the very beginning of human history! 


Theoretical Ethics 8l 


The prophet exclaimed: “Woe unto them that call evil good 
and good evil; that put darkness for light and light for 
darkness” (Isa. 5:20)! 


(3) Other proofs. 


a. The universal human consciousness bears witness to 
the difference between good and evil; b. It is a postulate of 
human society; c. It is a fundamental presupposition of 
all human order and government; d. The human body it- 
self is so constituted that righteousness generally makes for 
health, while many sins destroy bodily vigor and often 
bring premature death; e. Differences of moral judgments 
do not obliterate moral distinctions, because, in spite of 
them all, conscience persists in approving the one and con- 
demning the other; f. Right and wrong in some instances 
may be hard to differentiate, but such cases are rather the 
exception than the rule; and, besides, as soon as an obscure 
case becomes clarified, the distinction between right and 
wrong shines forth. 


(4) The so-called “morally indifferent sphere.” 


We hold that this is a misnomer. There are many situ- 
ations in life in which the question of wrong does not arise, 
when men may choose between two or more right courses. 
We would call this the sphere of “the altogether right,” for 
no moral being can live in a sphere or a state that is morally 
indifferent. 


(5) A higher and a lower good. 


James Martineau seemed to make morality consist chiefly 
in choosing a higher good in the presence of a lower. Of 
course, there are such situations in this complex world, and 
then it is wrong to elect the lower good. But a complete 
ethical life cannot be built on such a principle, because there 


82 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


are many states and acts that are positively right, while 
others are just as positively wrong. No one would say 
that lying, stealing and adultery are lower goods; they are 
evil and only evil. 


(6) Questions of casuistry. 
The term “casuistry” in Ethics means difficult cases of 
conscience. That such cases exist no one will deny. “I do 
here perceive a divided duty.” We speak of “doubtful 
amusements.’ We rightly ask the question, “Is a lie ever 
justifiable?” 

In regard to the former, if they are “doubtful,” they 
were better abstained from. Conscience should never be 
tampered with. As for a lie, it is never justifiable, if you 
will properly define a lie. A lie is an untruth told or acted 
for the purpose of deceiving others in order to gain some 
unworthy end. Parables and allegories are not falsehoods. 
A fictitious story, which the author frankly intends as fic- 
tion, could not be classed asa lie. In certain athletic games 
ruses of various kinds are permissible because they are 
agreed upon by all participants as a part of the game. How- 
ever, aS soon as a player is discovered breaking a rule of 
the game, he and his party are penalized. 


A safe motto for doubtful transactions is, “Better not.” 
Says the Scripture: “Abstain from every appearance of 
evil.” A good motto here is, “Touch not, taste not, handle 
not.” 


1. Murray, 4 Handbook of Christian Ethics, pp. 311-315; Me 
Cunn, The Making of Character; Vincent, Better Not; Brooks, The 
Modern Dance; Edwards, Christianity and Amusements. 


CHAPTER VIII 


IV. THE GENESIS OF SIN. 


1. A CRUCIAL PROBLEM. 


Perhaps few problems have agitated the human mind 
more seriously than this problem. How often the question 
arises, “Whence came sin and suffering?’ Also: “Why 
were they permitted to enter the world?” Many volumes 
have been witten on the suject, but no merely human solu- 
tion has ever proved satisfactory. Let us, therefore, first 
appeal to the Holy Scriptures. 


2. THE BIBLICAL SOLUTION. 
(1) The Bible does not create the problem. 


So many skeptics seem to blame the Bible for the pres- 
ence of sin and sorrow in the world. But the Bible does 
not create the problem. If the Bible had not been written, 
or if it were not true, we still would have the problem of 
sin on our hands. And it would be more puzzling than 
now ; indeed, absolutely insoluble. If men want to blame 
God, they can gain no help by such an accusation; for the 
Power that controls the world, whatever it is, either brought 
sin into the world or else permitted it to enter. So how 
does it help our thinking to reject the Bible, which merely 
attempts to give a rational explanation of the way sin gained 
entrance into our world? But what is the Biblical solution 
of our problem? 


84 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


(2) The sin of angels. 


According to the most obvious interpretation of the Bib- 
lical doctrine, the first created moral beings were the angels. 
If that is so, the origin of sin in God’s universe must be as 
follows: 


The origin of sin is due to the first wrong choice of a 
free moral agent. 


If sin is sin in the sense of guilt, there can be no other 
solution. Sin must be a free act in order to be sin. Other- 
wise it would be merely misfortune. Some of the angels, 
according to the Bible, became jealous of God’s power and 
majesty, yielded to the feeling instead of rejecting it, and 
thus rebelled against the divine government. This is what 
is meant by the fall of the angels. Their sin converted 
them into demons or evil spirits. Their leader no doubt 
was Satan, who is known as the arch adversary of God. 
Then he or one of his emissaries entered the Edenic garden 
and inveigled the progenitors of the human race, thus bring- 
ing sin into our world. 


(3) The Fall of Man. 


The story of the Fall as it is given in Genesis III can be 
shown to be rational throughout. It need not be regarded 
as a myth or legend nor interpreted as an allegory. It may 
be accepted as actual history. It should be so accepted.? 


We would, therefore, define the origin of sin on this 
earth thus: 1t was due to the wrong choice of the first free 
moral agents placed here. Thus they corrupted their na- 
ture and entailed sinful depravity upon their posterity. Is 
this solution of the problem reasonable? 





1. For a somewhat extended treatment of the Biblical doctrine 
of the Fall of man, see the author’s Man’s First Disobedience. 


Theoretical Ethics 85 


3. THe RATIONALE OF THE BIBLICAL SOLUTION. 


(1) The progenitors of the race must have been real 
people. The human family could not have descended from 
mythological or legendary ancestors. 


(2) Being real people, they must have lived in a real 
environment. According to the Bible, their original habitat 
was a garden, not a jungle. They had real minds and 
bodies; they lived in a natural realm, with real soil, real 
grass, real trees, real animals. 


(3) They were moral beings endued with conscience 
and the power of choice. They were not mere happy, irre- 
sponsible machines or animals. They did not live in a 
mere “fools’ paradise.” Their moral character is implied 
in the fact that they were forbidden to eat of “the tree of 
the knowledge of good and evil,’ while they were bidden to 
eat of the fruit of all the other trees. The reason why God 
used a tree—a real tree, not a mythical or allegorical one 
—as the means for testing them is, they were physical as 
well as psychical beings; therefore the test, in order to be 
real and consistent, had to appeal to their whole dual na- 
ture. 


(4) The subtle serpent was not evil in itself, for God 
had created it, and had previously pronounced His whole 
creation “very good.” But it was acute and attractive, and 
therefore became the most suitable instrument for Satan’s 
use. Since a moral agent must have an adequate test in 
order to exercise his freedom of choice, it is probable that 
God permitted the evil spirit to enter the garden to afford 
such an ordeal. But God did not permit the evil spirit to 
coerce our first parents. The evil one tempted them, but 
he did not force them to eat of the inhibited fruit. Let us 
remember this fact, as it is vitally important. The form 


86 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


in which Satan came, while it constituted a real trial, was 
not of such a character as to overwhelm or overpower the 
original pair. 

(5) Why did God constitute our first parents moral 
agents? Because moral beings are of a vastly higher order 
than are mere automata. Let us think it through. Try to 
think of God making a universe of mere mechanisms only 
to sit by and watch them go on and on forever! How pre- 
posterous! Moral excellence is the highest kind of excel- 
lence. People who find fault with the Biblical explanation 
care only for pleasure; they are Hedonists. They want 
to shirk responsibility. 

(6) In amoral economy, such as the world evidently is, 
sin is a possibility, but not a necessity. Our first parents 
never should have converted that possibility into an actu- 
ality. 

(7) They were to blame for their disobedience. God 
had given them a fair chance. They were surrounded by 
beauty and utility; they were bidden to eat of all the trees 
of the garden with only one exception. They were duly 
warned. They had no valid excuse for their disobedience. 


(8) A graphic and realistic touch in the Biblical narra- 
tive is the fact that Adam and Eve became conscious and 
ashamed of their nakedness. Sin always brings ugliness 
and shame. Their original robe of righteousness was _ all 
beautiful. 


(9) Then they tried to hide from God. How realistic! 
How true to human experience even today! Men who sin 
against God always want to hide from Him; to shut Him 
out of their thoughts; even to get rid of Him by denying 
His existence; and at the last day they will call on the hills 
to fall on them and hide them from the eye of God. On 


Theoretical Ethics 87 


the other hand, people who are right with God welcome 
both His presence and His inspection. 


(10) Their attempt to shift the blame for their offense 
on others is a most graphic and realistic touch. It is de- 
scriptive of human nature today — making a “homology” 
that would seem to point to the race’s descent from the 
primeval pair in Eden. 


(11) God’s punishment was distributed equably toward 
all the offenders — an early instance of true justice, show- 
ing the highly ethical character of Biblical teaching. 


(12) Since man was the federal and organic head of 
the natural realm, it was consistent that, when he fell, na- 
ture, too, should share in the lapse. God cursed the ground, 
and placed a blight upon all nature, just as we see nature 
to be today. Paul says, “The whole creation groaneth and 
travaileth in pain together until now’ (Rom. 8: 18-23). 
Thus we can account for the imperfect working of nature 
without believing that God created her in her present lapsed 
and blighted condition. 


(13) The primitive pair, after their sin, could not re- 
main in the midst of a perfect environment; its glory would 
have burned into their souls. They had to be driven from 
the Edenic garden, and placed in surroundings that were 
in accord wtih their fallen nature. 


(14) What became of the garden of Eden? is a ques- 
tion with which Christian Ethics may deal. Our reply is: 
As long as God’s grace and glory remained immanent in it 
and shone upon it, it retained its paradisaical beauty and 
character; but presently they were, no doubt, withdrawn, 
and then the garden was permitted to be merged into the 
rest of lapsed nature, and thus its site was lost. 


88 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


But, if we may here relieve the gloom by anticipating 
what will be developed later on, the time will come when 
God will again glorify the realm of nature — will, indeed, 
re-imparadise the world. 


4. REFUTATION OF ERRONEOUS VIEWS. 


(1) God is not the author of sin. This is not a toler- 
able view. It would make God and the world irrational. 
Could such a universe continue? If God were to do wrong, 
would not all things plunge to ruin and destruction? 


(2) Sin is not eternal. That, too, is an intolerable con- 
ception. If sin wére eternal, it would not be sin; it would 
be a matter of necessity. Besides, it could never be over- 
come, and that would give us a hopeless world. It would 
spell the eclipse of faith, hope and love. The Biblical ex- 
planation is much more rational. 


(3) Sin is not posited in matter. Plato held that view, 
as did the Gnostics and Manicheans. But moral evil can- 
not begin nor inhere in insensate and impersonal substance. 
It is something psychical, having its origin in an act of the 
will. 


(4) The first sin in Eden was not sexual cohabitation, 
because God commanded the first pair to “be fruitful and 
multiply” (Gen. 1:28), and surely He would not have pun- 
ished them for carrying out His command. Moreover, 
there is no parallelism between the eating of the fruit of 
a tree and the act just named. 

(5) Sin is not a lapse of the Infinite. This is the Hindu 
doctrine, and is held by some pantheists of the present time. 
But the Infinite could suffer no such catastrophe or it would 
not be infinite. Infinity means absolute perfection. 


(6) The doctrine of a finite God has been introduced 


Theoretical Ethics 89 


to relieve God from blame for permitting evil to enter the 
world. Being finite, He could not prevent its entrance. 


But this is a hopeless view; for if God was unable to 
exclude sin from the world, how will He ever be able to 
overcome it? Men can afford Him no aid, for He created 
them, and thus their power can add nothing to His power. 
Moreover, most people are so sinful that they are more of 
a burden than a help to Him in His contest with evil. The 
Biblical doctrine of an omnipotent and all-wise God is much 
more rational. 


(7) Sin is not the heritage of man’s primitive animal- 
ism. This is a tenet of the theory of evolution. But it 
cannot be maintained. It would make God the author of 
sin, for it would mean that He gave to the animals their 
fierce and predacious nature, and decreed that it should be 
entailed as a burdensome heritage upon man. 


Besides, animals are not sinful. They live according to 
their nature. Among wild animals there are no venereal 
diseases. It would be a strange procedure to develop man 
from the animals, and then make the legacy of animalism 
imposed upon them sinful. If the selfish and bloody 
struggle for existence in the animal kingdom was the 
method of progress, bringing man into existence, why 
should it be wrong for men to continue along that bloody 
route? How much more reasonable and adequate is the 
Biblical solution of the origin and character of sin! 


Mentite ee PECTS OF SIN. 


1. Loss oF THE DIVINE IMAGE. 

Man did not lose his mind, nor were his general psy- 
chical powers destroyed; but the original innocence and 
moral integrity in which he was created were forfeited by 


90 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


his disobedience. Hence he is utterly unable to save him- 
self. 


2. MorAL SEPARATION FROM GOD. 

While God could still come to man in his fallen state, 
sin caused estrangement between him and God that could 
only be overcome by the grace and benevolence of God. 


3. MoraAL INABILITY IN SINFUL MAN. 


Since man by his sin had done despite to his moral and 
spiritual nature, he rendered himself unable to restore him- 
self to the divine favor. God had to intervene. 


4. DiscorD IN MAN’s Own BEING. 


As long as man obeyed God, the divine will was his cen- 
ter, and therefore all parts of his being functioned harmo- 
niously. When, however, he elected his own will and 
pleasure as his objective, his life became uncentered and 
swung about in an eccentric, causing confusion and discord 
within him. 


5. Sin Expos—ED THE SINFUL PAIR TO DIVINE PUNISH- 
MENT. 


If the moral economy is to be maintained, justice de- 
mands the punishment of the sinner; otherwise the govern- 
ment of God would be destroyed. Hence our first parents 
brought upon themselves condign penalty, and this fact 
affords a warning to all their posterity. 


6. ‘THEREFORE SIN IS EXCEEDINGLY HEINOUS AND 
RUINOUS. 


Sin must not be regarded lightly. It is anarchy, rebel- 
lion against the divine government. Could it have its way, 
it would destroy the universe and drag God Himself from 
His throne. It would turn the cosmos into chaos. 


Theoretical Ethics 91 


Is there any way by which sin may be overcome and the 
hurt of the people of the world healed? In our next divi- 


sion we are logically led to consider this question and try 
to find the answer. 


DIVISION V 


THE ETHICAL RESTORATION 
(Redemption through Christ) 


CHAPTER IX 


Ly CONNECTINGREIN Ks 


In the Christian system every element, every movement, 
is permeated with ethics. There is no factor that is non- 
moral. As we have seen, the world itself, besides being a 
mechanistic system under law, is also a moral economy. 
The realm of nature was divinely intended to be the arena 
for man’s moral activity and adventure. Man was created 
a free being; therefore, with the possibility of sinning, but 
with no inherent coercion leading him to sin. 


As we have seen, he disobeyed the divine command, and 
thus brought sin, misery and death into the world. Being 
the federal head of the race and the organic head of nature, 
both shared in man’s fall; causing inherited sinfulness in 
the race and more or less of blight upon nature. 

But, although the Bible gives a graphic narrative of the 
advent of sin into the world and of its baleful effects, it 
does not leave man and nature in the lurch. At once a 
plan of redemption, decreed from eternity (“the Lamb slain 
from the foundations of the world”), was set in operation. 
According to Biblical Ethics and Theology, this plan in- 
volves a restoration of a fallen world to its pristine estate 


Theoretical Ethics 93 


of moral and spiritual excellence, plus whatever glory may 
be added in and at the end of the process. While the 
method is progressive, as the Bible indicates, yet it is not a 
matter of mere evolution from an imperfect state to an in- 
creasingly developed state. That is not at all consistent 
with the Biblical doctrine, which plainly teaches that God’s 
method was to send His Son into the world to undo and 
overcome the evil brought into the world by Adam in his 
Fall. This plan involved a supernatural procedure. The 
incarnate Son of God was not a product of the evolution of 
the race. 


But how is this restoration of the fallen world to be 
effected? Merely by a divine fiat of amnesty whereby par- 
don and salvation are bestowed upon sinners without any 
satisfaction to the eternal law of justice? Could God 
simply wave aside that law, and forgive sin out of hand? 
If so, who would respect His government? Who would 
fear His justice? No; the principles of morality require 
that the moral government of the universe be upheld. This 
leads to our next section. 


Il. THE RESTORATION EFFECTED BY REDEMP- 
TION. 


Whatever human speculation may think, the Bible plainly 
teaches that a Redeemer was sent into the world to save that 
which was lost; to bring back to man the divine favor and 
blessing and righteousness which the first Adam forfeited. 
The chief factor in Christ’s mission here on earth was to 
“give His life a ransom for the many;” to “shed His blood 
for the remission of sins.” “Him who knew no sin He 
made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the 
righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21). 


94 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


As has been said, God wrought out His redemptive plan 
historically and progressively. Let us note the lofty eth- 
ical character of the Christian method of redemption. 


Ill. ETHICAL PREPARATION FOR REDEMPTION. 


1. IN THE GENTILE WORLD. 


This thesis can be developed only in outline form. Note 
the following points: (1) Flashes of truth and aspiration 
in human philosophy (Plato especially); (2) Despair of 
human religion and philosophy; (3) Dominion of the Ro- 
mon empire; (4) A general condition of peace over the 
world; (5) General use of the Greek language; (6) Con- 
venient means of travel by land and sea; (7) “The fullness 
of time” with the Gentiles. All these factors have their 
ethical implications in preparing for the coming of an ethical 
Redeemer. 


2. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT DISPENSATION. 

(1) By providential care and guidance; (2) By special 
inspiration of godly men; (3) By a chosen people fitted to 
be the carriers of the plan; (4) By types and symbols; (5) 
By moral precept and command; (6) By promise and 
prophecy; (7) “The fullness of time” in the Hebrew world. 

These various topics might easily be developed at some 
length in showing their ethical significance. For example, 
under the first division one might show that God’s care over 
His people consisted in His rewarding and blessing them 
whenever they obeyed His laws and walked uprightly, and 
in admonishing and punishing them when they departed 
from the way of righteousness. Through His prophets He 
also sought to guide them in the right way. Under the 
second section, the ethical implication is that the Holy Spir- 
it’s inspiration ever gave to God’s people a revelation that 


Theoretical Ethics 95 


was holy, and that He sought and found men of high moral 
character to be His amanuenses; the result of which com- 
bination was a holy Book, the Bible. 


The consideration of the ethical preparation leads us 
logically to the next topic. 


Proro en eUEVMP TION THROUGH (CHRIST: 


1. THe MorAL EXCELLENCE OF THE REDEEMER. 


In the nature of the case the Redeemer of the world 
must be holy. A sinful being could not redeem sinners, 
because he himself would need a redeemer. Therefore 
the teaching of the Bible on this point is in accord with the 
demands of reason and the science of Ethics: “For such a 
high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separate 
from sinners, made higher than the heavens’”’ (Heb. 7: 26) ; 
“Yet without sin’ (4:15) ; “Him who knew no sin He made 
fone sil) 2 Cores: 21). Who" did sno. sin, neither was 
guile found in His mouth” (1 Pet. 2:22) ; “Christ also suf- 
fered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that 
He might bring us to God” (1 Pet. 3:18). 


2. ETHICS OF THE KENOSIS. 


That there is a sense in which the Son of God “emptied 
Himself” is the clear teaching of God’s Word (Phil. 2:7). 
However, this does not mean that He renounced His Deity, 
or made Himself a sinner, or so limited Himself that He 
fell into error in His teaching; but He refrained for the 
time being from exercising and manifesting His divine glory 
and majesty. Besides, it was not His divine nature (which, 
indeed, He possessed in common with the Father and the 
Son) that was humiliated, but His divine person in and 
through His assumed human nature. 


96 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


This is the doctrine, but what is its ethical content? 
Answer: The spirit of beneficence it reveals, of condescen- 
sion, of sacrifice, of holy accommodation to human need. 
When men humble themselves for the good of others, we 
approve of their acts. |. Whence cames such.a spirit ulti- 
mately, save from the self-abnegating principle in the nature 
of the Son of God? 


3. EtTHics OF THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION OF CHRIST. 


The proof of the doctrine of the virgin birth of our Lord 
belongs to Dogmatics and Apologetics. The gospels of 
Matthew and Luke teach it explicitly, and therefore the 
quarrel of the person who denies the doctrine is with the 
Holy Scriptures, not with evangelical believers. But, tak- 
ing it for granted as a doctrine, what is its ethical import? 
It insures the sinless character of Christ’s assumed human 
nature; for if it was begotten in the seminal being of the 
virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, it must have been purified 
from all sin in the process. The Holy Spirit did not en- 
sphere the person of the Son of God in corrupt human na- 
ture, but in pure, pristine human nature as it came origin- 
ally from the creative power of God. Hence, being Him- 
self sinless in His human nature and also divine in nature 
and person, Jesus Christ was in every way fitted morally 
and potentially to be the world’s Redeemer. 


4. ETHICS OF THE INCARNATION. 


The assumption of our human nature by the eternal Son 
of God proves His holy affection for man, in that He was 
willing to place Himself on man’s level in order that He 
might befriend him in the most loving and intimate way. 
“And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us” 
(John 1:14). “How condescending and how kind was 


Theoretical Ethics 97 


God’s eternal Son!” Man could not have stood in the pres- 
ence of an unveiled theophany. Hence the Son of God 
veiled His glory and majesty in human form. 


5. EtTHIcAL VALUE OF CHRIST’S EXAMPLE. 


No doubt one of the primary purposes of the divine in- 
carnation was to afford men a real, concrete and perfect 
example of human living in the midst of environments of 
temptation and affliction. It was not an example of a di- 
vine Being that man needed, but a human example. We 
can conceive of no other way in which the Son of God could 
have lived a model human life before men for their inspira- 
tion and encouragement save by becoming incarnate—that 
is, by assuming human nature and functioning in and 
through it. 


6. EtuicAL INFLUENCE OF CHRIST’s DISPLAY OF DI- 
VINE LOVE. 


To know that God loves us is most comforting and reas- 
suring. To know that He loves us enough to “give Him- 
self for us” in utmost humiliation and self-sacrifice is most 
appealing to the very best that is in us. How could such 
love have been displayed except through a divine incarna- 
tion and expiatory sacrifice? 


7. ETHICAL MOTIVIZATION FROM CHRIST’S TEACHING. 


By becoming incarnate the Son of God could live and 
move among men and teach them His holy and uplifting 
doctrines without overawing them. This was the ethical 
and psychological method — to teach men, to inspire them, 
to save them through their own apprehension and accept- 
ance of truth revealed to them by instruction. God pur- 
sued the normal pedagogical method of bringing the knowl- 
edge of salvation to men. 


98 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


8. EtruHicAL DEMAND FOR VICARIOUS AND SUBSTITU- 
TIONAL ATONEMENT. 


This doctrine is abundantly validated by Biblical teach- 
ing, and it is the business of Biblical Theology to establish 
the doctrine. But why does Christian Ethics demand ex- 
piation for sin? Because, while love and mercy motivated 
God in sending His Son (John 3:16) and the Son in com- 
ing to save the world, the principles of moral government 
could not be waved aside merely by divine power and fiat. 
The eternal principle of justice had also to be upheld and 
vindicated. Any violation of that principle would have 
been unethical — yes, catastrophic in the world and to the 
nature of God. 

The Triune God is the eternal source of the law of jus- 
tice; therefore, one person of the Trinity could become in- 
carnate, place Himself under the law, suffer the penalty 
of transgression in the place of sinners, and thus show them 
love, grace and mercy without derogating from the majesty 
of the law. The heinousness of sin and the majesty of the 
law are revealed nowhere more impressively than on Cal- 
vary where the Son of God Himself had to pay the penalty 
before man could be justified and saved. 


Therefore the so-called “moral influence” theory of the 
atonement is the reverse of moral, because it violates the 
eternal principle of justic. In the atonement by the incar- 
nate Son of God “mercy and truth are met together; right- 
eousness and peace have kissed each other” (Ps. 85:10). 


10. ETHICAL VALUE OF CHRIST’S UBIQUITY. 


That Christ is ever present with His people is a most 
precious doctrine. “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto 
the end of the world;” “Where two or three are gathered 
together in my name, there am I in the midst of them;” 


Theoretical Ethics 99 


“Christ in you, the hope of glory.’”’ If men are conscious 
of the personal presence of the pure, white Christ, surely 
they will desire to be pure in heart and live pure outward 
lives. They would not want to do anything unseemly. 
More than that, His personal presence is a precious com- 
fort and help to the Christian. 


Poem Ee iS On REDEMPTION: 
1. MAN. 


(1) As far as we know, he is the only being who is 
salvable: no offer of salvation is given in the Scriptures 
to the evil spirits. 


(2) His moral depravity and inability are evident. He 
is “dead in trespasses and sins.” He can in nowise set 
himself free from sin’s bondage, nor cleanse himself from 
its deflement. Hence some power outside of himself must 
come to him and save him. For this ethical purpose the 
plan of redemption through Christ was decreed and set 
into operation through the pure love and grace of God. 


(3) His actual offenses, after he comes to the age of 
responsibility, greatly aggravate his status before God. Yet 
God is willing to forgive and save. 


(4) His relation to the Law. 


“Through the law comes the knowledge of sin.” The 
holy law of God condemns him. The law cannot save him, 
and was not intended to save him, because he is an offender 
against the law. Moreover, being a sinner, and therefore 
morally disabled, he cannot keep the holy law of God. He 
needs help from another source. After he has been saved, 
the law becomes his guide and standard of conduct. 


(5) His relation to the Gospel. 


100 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


The Gospel is God’s offer of salvation. Convicted of 
sin and rendered contrite by the law (which is holy), he is 
turned to the proffers of the Gospel. Here he beholds 
Christ as the expiatory Saviour, faith is begotten within 
him, and he accepts Christ as his Redeemer. Then that 
gracious ethical transformation, called salvation, takes place 
within him. 

2. THE Cosmos. 

Since the natural realm suffered a lapse with the Fall of 
man (Gen. 3: 14-19), its organic head, the promise is that 
the creation, too, “shall be delivered from the bondage of 
corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God” 
(Rom. 8: 18-23). There is also the promise of “new 
heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness’ 
aN ele GMa SS gy 

The ethical import of these precious and inspiring prom- 
ises lies in the fact that the natural realm shall be purified 
of all physical corruption, in order that it may be a fit hab- 
itat for beings who are spiritually pure and holy. No other 
kind of residence would be accordant. 


CHAPTER X 


VI. THE APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 


1. THe ETHICAL AGENT. 


The incarnate Son of God wrought what is called in 
Theology “the objective redemption.” But in order that 
the process may be spiritual and ethical, the redemption 
thus wrought for us must be applied. It must not be im- 
posed upon men in a mechanical, coercive and arbitrary 
way. ‘There are ethical laws that must be observed. 

The Scriptures teach that it is the office of the Holy 
Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity, to apply redemption 
in accordance with ethical and psychological principles. 
Perhaps He, being the innermost Person of the Godhead, 
is consistently chosen to perform the innermost spiritual 
work in the souls of men. That at least would seem to be 
the logical procedure. 

Note the high ethical principles involved in the divine 
method: the Holy Spirit would always perform ethical 
operations; He would do a holy work in consistence with 
His holy nature. The plan of redemption is ethical through- 
out. No breach is made anywhere in the ethical law. 


2. THe Etruicat MEANS EMPLOYED. 

(1) The Word of God. 

The Holy Spirit does not come down out of the blue. 
He employs what are known as the means of grace. The 
chief of these is the Word of God. It is only through the 


102 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


Holy Scriptures that we know about Christ, His atoning 
sacrifice for sin, the Holy Spirit and His gracious functions. 
No one is ever converted in the Christian way except as he 
is instructed in the Word. 

But the Bible, being divinely inspired, is holy; its teach- 
ing is replete with the right, and it everywhere condemns 
the wrong. Therefore the chief vehicle of grace is ethical. 


(2) THE SACRAMENTS. 


Since the Word of God is holy, and since the sacraments 
received their efficacy only through their connection with 
the Word, it follows Ipgically that they must themselves 
partake of that quality, and therefore are ethical means 
through which God bestows His favor upon those who prop- 
erly use them. Thus the use of them is truly ethicized in 
the Christian sense of the term. According to the Lu- 
theran view, in baptism regeneration is conferred, and that 
must be an ethical work, being begotten by the Holy Spirit. 
In the Lord’s Supper Christ Himself, being really present, 
is received into the soul, and thus again an ethical work 
has been wrought. 


3. THe ETHICAL ASSEMBLY: THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


(1) Doctrinal Theology establishes the fact from the 
Holy Scriptures that the Christian Church is a divine insti- 
fution (Matt, 16:18; 18-17: Acts) 2247-0 15322 ee 
Eph. 5: 23-27; 1 Tim. 3:5, 15). This being so, the Church 
must be essentially holy, ethical. Moreover, as the true 
spiritual Church is composed of regenerated persons, it 
must be essentially righteous. 

Being a divine institution, it becomes the duty of every 
one to become regenerated and identify himself with the 
Church. Should it be said that this does not imply belong- 


Theoretical Ethics 103 


ing to an organization, we would answer: the followers of 
Christ could never acomplish their divinely appointed work 
of upholding the Christian faith and carrying it to the ends 
of the earth without coming together in organized bodies. 
The Christian Church today is composed of the various 
evangelical churches which are true to its original institu- 
tion and purpose. Therefore it is the duty of every one 
to belong to the Church in one or another of its various 
forms, not in order to be saved, but in order to help fulfill 
Christ's command to “go into all the world and preach the 
gospel to every creature.” 


a) He CUTHICAL. ORDER OF SALVATION, 
(1) Its doctrinal basis. 


Evangelical scholars, by a thorough examination and 
correlation of Scripture, have wrought out the several or- 
derly movements of the Holy Spirit in applying the objec- 
tive redemption which Christ wrought out for the fallen 
race. The author believes that this order is Biblical, con- 
sistent with the rationale of God’s work with the human 
soul, and in accord with the principles of scientific psychol- 
ogy. He therefore accepts it without further ado, and pro- 
ceeds to depict its ethical elements in the several steps. 


(2) Its Ethical elements. 
a. Vocation. 


This is the call of God to awaken the sinner to his un- 
saved condition. It is a holy calling to forsake sin and seek 
salvation. 


b. Illumination. 


In this process the Holy Spirit through the Word of God 
uses the law to convict the sinner of his sins and to show 


104 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


him his moral and spiritual helplessness. “Through the 
law cometh the knowledge of sin.” 


c. Repentance or godly sorrow for sin. 


This state is the result of the previous process. It is 
highly ethical, because it means not only contrition, but also 
a desire to be freed from the unethical status. Repentance 
(metanoia) means a change of mind—that is, of the intel- 
lect, the heart, and the will. 





d. Passiwwe faith. 


The convicted sinner may struggle and try to save him- 
self for a time, as Luther did, but until he 1s willing to sur- 
render to God, who alone can save him, the work will not 
proceed. The Holy Spirit operates upon him until he pas- 
sively permits God to save him; then the next divine func- 
tion takes place. 


e. Regeneration. 

As soon as the convicted sinner gives himself up com- 
pletely into God’s hands, the Holy Spirit begets the new 
life within him. It is an ethical life because it is begotten 
by the Holy Spirit. 


f. Active or justifying faith. 

By the work of the Holy Spirit, begetting the new spir- 
itual life, passive faith is converted into active faith, which 
lays hold upon Christ and His merit according to the proffer 
of the Gospel. This faith is a good (ethical) work, because 
is is begotten by the Holy Spirit and accepts the righteous 
Saviour. 


g. Justification. 


The soul that accepts Christ is justified — that is, all that 
Christ did for the sinner by His active and passive obedi- 


Theoretical Ethics 105 


ence is counted over in his behalf. This is both a forensic 
and a paternal act on God’s part. 


It is highly ethical, because it removes all pride and self- 
righteousness from the human heart, and fills it with pure 
love and gratitude to God for His gratuitous gift of pardon 
and salvation. There will be no boasting in heaven among 
the justified. They will give all the praise to the Redeem- 
ing God. 


No antimonianism is encouraged in this gracious plan, 
because: confession and abandonment of sin are required 
at the beginning; the whole process saves from sin; there- 
fore it would be impossible for the saved person to live in 
sin (see Rom. 6:1, 2, 15-8). 


h. Conversion. 


This term is here used in the widest sense, and there- 
fore includes all the preceding movements. It means to 
change thoroughly (con, with, and verto, to change). Its 
ethical import lies in the fact that it is a transition from a 
life of sin to one of righteousness. “‘Conversion is the work 
of the Holy Spirit by which, through faith in Christ, we 
turn (or are turned) from darkness to light and from the 
power of Satan unto God.” Ethical, ethical throughout. 


i. The Mystical Union. 

This means that the truly converted person is united in 
spiritual fellowship with the Triune God. Its ethical qual- 
ity consists in the holy relation of the believer with the 
Source of all good. 


j. Sanctification. 


This term is here used to designate a progressive work 
and experience —“growth in grace and in the knowledge of 


106 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


Jesus: Christ”(2 Pet.’3 :185 Phil-32 13-16; Hebs 61-35 is 
1,2). Surely growth in goodness is an ethical process. 


k. Glorification. 


This refers to the consummation of the Christian’s 
earthly life and his entrance into heaven, in which he is in 
a state of ethical perfection and glory. Thus we are led 
to the final sub-division of our system of Theoretical Ethics. 


VII. THE CONSUMMATION OF REDEMPTION. 


1. THe Sout PERFECTED AT DEATH. 


This does not occur automatically by the separation of 
the soul from the body, for the body is not the seat of 
moral evil (as Plato and the Manicheans taught) ; but the 
soul is purified from all the remains of sin by an act of God 
before it is admitted into heaven. This is not an arbitrary 
or coercive divine act, but one to which the believing soul 
gladly assents and which it has desired through all its 
earthly life. 


2. THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 


In Protestant Theology this does not mean the Roman 
Catholic condition of purgatory, but the state of the soul 
between death and the resurrection. It is the disembodied 
state, and is temporary. Ethically speaking, the souls of 
true believers are dwelling in blissful fellowship with God, 
and are known as “the spirits of just men made perfect.” 
Even though they may be awaiting the restoration of the 
body, their joy is full; yet it will be enhanced when the 
final consummation takes place. 


3. THE FINAL JUDGMENT AND THE RESURRECTION. 


The fact that men must look forward to the divine judg- 
ment and “give an account of the deeds done in the body” 


Theoretical Ethics 107 


has a wholesome effect upon their faith and their Chris- 
tianly moral life. Much restraint would be lost if men felt 
they would never be called to account. 


It would be wrong were the body not to be raised from 
the dead and glorified; for, since Satan brought death into 
the world, the victory over him would not be complete if 
it should have compassed the eternal destruction of the body. 
Then it could not be said truly, “The last enemy that shall 
be abolished is death” (1 Cor. 15:26). The glorified body, 
purified of all defilement, shall be a fit temple for the pur- 
ified soul — and this, again is the highest ethical state. 


4. THe Purity AND GLORY OF THE FUTURE STATE. 


Its ethical quality shall be its immaculate purity, moral 
and physical. Every reference to the future life in the 
Bible connotes absolute purity. All the imagery employed 
in the book of Revelation suggests purity. “Nothing that 
defileth nor worketh abomination nor maketh a lie shall 
enter therein” (Rev. 21:27). Only those are there who 
“have washed their robes and made them white in the blood 
of the Lamb” (Rev. 7: 13-17). There shall also be “new 
heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness” 
eet) 13 ): 


PART II 
PRACTICAL ETHICS 


DIVISION I 
INTRODUCTORY DATA 


CHAPTER XI 


I. DEFINITION. 

Practical Ethics is the systematic treatment of the appli- 
cation of moral principles to human life. 

This treatment of Ethics is a part of the science just as 
much as is Theoretical Ethics. The actual carrying out of 
the principles in human life may be called the art of Ethics. 


Il TTS RELATION TO THERORE TIGA ii has 


1. A ViTaL RELATION. 

If the right kind of principles have been laid down in 
the first Part of this work, the practical Part should bear 
the same connection with it as the fruit bears to the living 
tree. This conception carried into practice will make the 
actor sincere through and through. There will be no cam- 
ouflage. His principles and his practices will agree. 


2. A VITALLY IMPORTANT RELATION. 


It is all-important for men to hold the right ethical prin- 
ciples. In Christian Ethics it makes a great deal of differ- 


Practical Ethics 109 


ence what a man believes, what his inner faith is. “Asa 
man thinketh in his heart, so is he,” is much profounder 
ethically than the modernistic saying, “No matter what you 
believe, just so you live right.” The fact is, if a man be- 
lieves one thing and lives another, he is not genuine through 
and through. The only truly ethical life is to believe the 
truth and live the truth. The inner and the outer life must 
agree. Be right and do right — that is the complete ethical 
law. The Bible everywhere inculcates inner and outer 
purity. “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a 
right spirit within me;” “God weigheth the hearts ;” “I be- 
lieved ; therefore have I spoken.” 


On the other hand, as men are constituted, we know that 
they must often make an effort of the will to bring their 
conduct into accord with the principles they know and ac- 
cept. “If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do 
them.”’ One might think that the practical life would simply 
flow spontaneously from the right inner principles, but 
experience proves that such is not the case. Therefore 
Practical Ethics is necessary to complete our science and to 
make it truly serviceable. 


Ii; SUBJECT-MATTER OF PRACTICAL ETHICS. 


The subject-matter of Practical Ethics is the Christian 
moral life of faith, love and service. As will be shown 
later, this life is all involved in the word “duty” when rightly 
defined. 


Peta user) Lr CORISTIANLY ETHICAL LIPE. 


1. It is not the life of the natural man; not merely the 
natural evolution of forces natively in the “subconscious” 
mind (so-called). “The natural man receiveth not the 


110 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


things of the Spirit of God;’ “The carnal mind is enmity 
against God, and is not subject to the law of God;”’ “That 
which is born of the flesh is flesh;’ “For I know that in 
me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing” (Rom. 7:18; 
here the word “flesh,” sarx, refers to man’s carnal nature). 
Whatever morality may be developed from the mere nat- 
ural man, it cannot be called Christian morality. 


2. The Christian moral life is dependent on the redeem- 
ing work of Christ. Without acceptance of Christ and His 
redemptive work no true spiritually ethical relationship can 
be established between God and man. ‘The natural man is 
still under the law of condemnation until he accepts the 
divine plan of salvation. 


3. The potential principles of the Christianly moral life, 
as weil as the spiritual life, are begotten in man’s soul by 
the Holy Spirit in regeneration, and from that germinal 
source it is progressively developed by the correlation of 
divine grace and the unfettered human will. From the 
Christian viewpoint, one may well ask whether a man can 
be truly moral unless he loves the God who gave the Bible 
to the world, who sent His Son to redeem mankind, and 
who freely offers amnesty to all who will repent and be- 
lieve. It must be a superficial conception of ethical prin- 
ciples which could answer that question in the affirmative. 
Christian morality plows deep. 


V. THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION, OF DU 


The term duty may seem to many people to imply diff- 
cult and disagreeable tasks, and no doubt it often does in- 
volve that idea. In Christian morality, however, duty is 
irradiated and permeated with love, and is thus converted 
into delight and privilege. Even the hardest task may be- 


Practical Ethics 111 


come a pleasure when the heart is filled with the love of 
God. Hence we shall freely use the word duty throughout 
this part of our work, remembering that it is not used in 
the hard, rigorous sense of Stoicism, but in the transfigured 
Christian sense. 


iOS 2 DN NTS) 0 is Wd Sd Bd BY ORS 

1. Duties To Gop. 

(1) To recognize Him. 

It surely cannot be said to be moral to ignore one’s Cre- 
ator, Preserver and Redeemer. It is even regarded as im- 
polite to accept favors from one’s fellows without recog- 
nizing and thanking the giver. Wall men not treat God, the 


Giver of all good gifts, even with common politeness? “In 
everything give thanks.” 


(2) To repent before Him. 


As soon as men come to recognize God and enter into 
His presence, they become conscious of their sinfulness. 
They feel that the good and holy God cannot look upon sin 
with any degree of allowance. This begets a feeling of 
conviction and contrition. The only ethical course then is 
to repent and ask God for pardon. In the Christian view 
it is eminently unethical to refuse to confess and forsake 
one’s sins (Prov. 28:13). 


(3) To accept His gracious offer of salvation. 


Since God has provided salvation for men at the cost 
of the sacrifice of His only begotten Son, we may well 
question whether it is right —that is, ethical—to ignore 
and refuse His proffered gift. Is it moral to trample upon 
love, and especially divine love? 


12 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


(4) To love, trust and obey Hum. 


At the risk of some repetition, it is pertinent to say that, 
since God loves us with a paternal and self-abnegating love, 
we ought to love Him in return. It is also right to trust 
Him; to fail to do so is tantamount to calling his probity 
and goodness in question. And surely to obey Him is the 
only ethical course. 


(5) To pray to Him and worship Him. 

“T will be inquired of,” says God in His book. He may 
know what men need without their asking, but it is better 
for them to ask. They will appreciate all the more what 
they desire enough to ask for. Prayer brings the soul into 
communion with God, and surely that advances the holy life. 

There is also much ethical value in worship. Just as 
men are made better and more refined by the contemplation 
of beauty, so they are lifted to a higher plane of thought 
and life when they adore the highest Being, God. 


(6) To walk consistently before Him in the world. 


“Be ye circumspect,’ says the Word. “Provide things 
honest in the sight of all men;’ “Let your light so shine;” 
“Let not your good be evil spoken of;’ “Let none of you 
suffer as an evil doer.” Disciples must not bring reproach 
upon their Master. The best translation of the gospel is a 
holy life according to its principles. 


(7) To proclaim and defend the gospel. 


Surely the true disciple will want to pass the blessing on. 
What has filled his life with joy will also help his fellow- 
men. Remember the old hymn, “Can we whose souls 
lighted,” etc.? And surely, when the gospel is attacked, 
maligned or misrepresented, the earnest disciple will defend 
it. He would defend his own good name if it were 


Practical Ethics 113 


smirched. Will he not defend Christ and the gospel? 
Christ defended Himself more than once. So did Paul 
and Peter; so did the prophets of old. Some one has said, 
“There is too much defense.” Our reply is, Some people 
never defend the gospel at all, and thus are recreant to their 
trust Read ti Pety 3.15; oJude:3;- Paul’s’detense. before 
Agrippa and on Mars Hill. 


(8) To bear chastisement without murmuring. 

A complaining Christian does not advertise his religion 
well. There is a good deal of Biblical warning against the 
murmuring habit. The people of Israel were punished for 
murmuring. We should remember this: “No chastening 
for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: never- 
theless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruits of right- 
eousness unto them that are exercised thereby” (Heb. 12: 
Us). 

(9) To anticipate eternal fellowship with Him. 

He that truly loves God desires such eternal fellowship. 
It would be his greatest grief to be separated from his heav- 
enly Father. There is nothing weak or maudlin about such 
aspirations. It is a virile thing to desire to live forever, if 
you desire to live nobly and uprightly in the highest kind of 
fellowship. Christ promised such fellowship in His win- 
some saying about “the Father’s house of many mansions.” 


2. Duties To NATURE. 

These may be summed up briefly, and yet the theme 
might be greatly amplified: (1) To trace God’s power and 
wisdom in her forms and operations (Ps. 19) ; (2) To study 
her phenomena scientifically (what a wide and suggestive 
field!) ; (3) To preserve and develop her (the first occupa- 
tion given to man, Gen. 1:28; 2:15); (4) To show mercy 
to all her sentient creatures. 


CHAPTER XII 


VI. MAN’S CHIEF DUTIES (continued). 


3. DUTIES TO ONESELF. 
(1) To the body. 
a. To keep it pure and clean. 


It is intended to be “the temple of the Holy Ghost;” “a 
living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God.’ Said some 
one, “Religion is a great face-washer.” As soon as people 
are converted, they appreciate the value of water and soap. 
A clean soul in a clean body is the ideal ethical life for the 
Christian. 


b. To keep it in the best possible health. 


“A sound mind in a sound body,” is a good maxim. Of 
course, there are people who are sickly or invalided when 
it is not their fault, and they must bear their affliction pa- 
tiently, and try to remember that “all things work together 
for good to them that love God, to them that are called 
according to His purpose.” Nevertheless, every one is in 
duty bound to preserve his bodily health as far as possible 
by temperate habits, by the use of proper food and drink 
and by sufficient exercise. There is merit in labor, but none 
in destroying the health to amass either wealth or learning. 
How wrong, too, to be gluttonous in eating, to be intemper- 
ate in drinking! One who ruins his health by such indul- 
gence sins, not only against himself, but also against God 


Practical Ethics 115 


and society; for everyone owes the best of which he is 
capable to God’s cause and the well-being of the world. 


b. To regulate its passions and appetites. 


No natural passion is wrong per se. All the passions, 
in their pristine purity, were divinely given and were in- 
tended for a moral and spiritual purpose. Therefore the 
chief duty of man in this respect is to exercise proper con- 
trol. That was one of the great quartette of virtues incul- 
cated by Plato’s ethics. It is not always easy to exercise 
self-control, but it is part of the discipline of life, and it can 
be done by a proper use of divine grace in conjunction with 
a determined effort of the regenerated will. 


c. To remember its dignity and destiny. 


The human body was fashioned by the Almighty in a 
wonderful way; not by mere fiat, but a direct and pains- 
taking effort. And a marvellous organism He made it. 
The Son of God, when He became incarnate (John 1:14), 
assumed a human body as well as man’s psychical nature. 
What a tribute to this part of man’s dual being! The body 
is intended for an immortal destiny through the resurrec- 
tion. Therefore we speak of the dignity and final destiny 
of the human body in God’s marvellous plan of creation, 
preservation and redemption, and that is a thrilling reason 
why the body should be presented to God as a living sacri- 
fice, devoted to highly ethical purposes. 


(2) To the Mind. 


a. The process of culture. 


To be truly ethical every faculty of the human soul 
should be cultivated in due proportion, and to an extent in 
keeping with the vocation to which each man or woman has 
been called. Some vocations require more culture of the 


116 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


intellect than others, but this does not mean that one useful 
calling is of a superior grade morally than are others. Each 
person should have the proper training to be most efficient 
in his specific business in life. 


However, in any calling some education will be of great 
value for giving more satisfaction to life and enabling one 
to do more good in the world. 


It might be profitable here to consult the Outline of the 
Human Mind in Chapter II, Division VIII, 2, and reflect 
on the ethical implications in the culture of the Intellect, the 
Emotions and the Will. Think of the ethical value of stor- 
ing the memory with true thoughts, with inspiring adages 
from the Bible and other sources. The benefit of reflection 
on uplifting themes is of inestimable moral value. Says 
the apostle, after naming a number of beautiful virtues, 
“Think on these things” (Phil. 4:8). Too much could not 
be said, did space permit, on the right cultivation and con- 
trol of the emotions. For example, the Christian should 
be careful to distinguish between emotion proper and emo- 
tionalism. There should be heart in religion, and yet feel- 
ing should not degenerate into mere emotionalism. 


After men have been regenerated, by which their wills 
have been set free and enabled by divine grace, they should 
use them, and never should allow themselves to be swayed 
by mere feeling or evil passion. They should remember 
that they are not in the grip of fate or circumstance or 
heredity or environment; that their wills have been given 
them to be used. Christians sometimes suffer sad down- 
falls because they neglect the sturdy use of the will. 


b. Motives for culture. 


Among the wrong motives may be mentioned: (a) Mere 
worldly ambition; (b) The expectation of finding an easy 


Practical Ethics 117 


way of making a livelihood or gaining a competence; (c) 
To be able to exploit, or take advantage of, one’s fellow- 
men. Referring to the last item, a good deal of intellectual 
knowledge is necessary today to be a successful rascal. 


Among the right motives we call attention to the follow- 
ing: (a) The desire for useful knowledge —a desire that 
God has implanted in the human mind; (b) The purpose 
of injecting good and profitable ideas in the mind, so as to 
crowd out evil thoughts and propensities — “ the expulsive 
power of a new affection;”’ (c) Above all, the desire to 
serve God and do good in the world. The prophet said it 
well: “The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the 
learned that I might speak a word in season to him that is 
weary.” To go to college, to secure an education, so that 
you may be able to do greater and better service — that is 
the highest motive. 


(3) To one’s whole Personality. 


a. After all, while man is a dual being, composed of soul 
and body, he is an anteger, a single personality; therefore 
we call attention to his ethical culture as a unified being. 


b. He should endeavor to build up as strong a person- 
ality as possible. He should not be weak, anemic. By re- 
liance on divine grace, in conjunction with a proper use of 
his will, he may, as it were, potentialize himself. As much 
of the psychology of the day teaches, man has resources 
in his soul that can be called into play if he will make the 
effort. This principle should be acknowledged and applied, 
whether one believes in the Freudian philosophy of the “un- 
conscious mind” or not. 


c. Every man should cultivate a symmetrical personal- 
ity. There is always danger of onesidedness. All the 
Christian virtues should be disciplined and developed in due 


118 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


proportion. Says the Psalmist: “The righteous shall flour- 
ish like the palm tree’ —an apt comparison, considering 
the beautiful symmetry of that tree. For example, a woman 
said, “ I help the poor instead of going to church.” This 
is onesided. Why not do both? 


d. All that has gone before in this section implies that 
a virtuous personality should be cultivated by the Christian. 
Here a few definitions are in order: 

Virtue is rectitude and virility of character. 

The virtues (virtue might be called the genus, the vir- 
tues the various species) are those several ethical qualities 
that go to make up the character of the truly upright man. 

The Christian virtues are those qualities that spring from 
the life of faith in Christ — that is, the Christianly regen- 
erated life. 

It is difficult to classify the virtues. As has been pre- 
viously shown, Plato’s classification is not satisfactory. 
Perhaps it will be better to treat each virtue separately, and 
point out its antithesis and perversion, and then try to culti- 
vate each one in the way indicated. Here is a list which 
may be studied and practiced with profit: 


PosiTIvE CoNTENT ANTITHESIS PERVERSION 
Love Hatred Sentimentality 
Faith Unbelief Credulity 
Hope Despair Ultra-optimism 
Humility Pride Servility 
Firmness Vacillation Obstinacy 
Courage Cowardice Foolhardiness 
Self-respect Self-contempt Conceit 
Fidelity Perfidy Indiscriminate Loyalty 
Patriotism Disloyalty Chauvinism 
Veracity Falsehood Brusqueness 
Sincerity Insincerity None 
Enthusiasm Lethargy Fanaticism 
Diligence Slothfulness Ultra-assiduity 


Practical Ethics 119 


A ffability Surliness Sycophancy 
Neatness Slovenliness Fastidiousness 
Individuality Inanity Erraticism 
Patience Impatience Stolidity 
Conscientiousness Unscrupulousness Squeamishness 
Politeness Boorishness Effusiveness 
Liberality Stinginess Prodigality 
Dignity Vulgarity Superciliousness 
Chastity Licentiousness Prudery 
Self-denial Self-indulgence Asceticism 


In each case, of course, the positive vitrue is to be culti- 
vated, while both the antithesis and the perversion are to 
be avoided. In many situations in practical life fine dis- 
crimination is needed in distinguishing the positive content 
from its perversion. As examples, it may not always be 
easy in real life to distinguish between humility and servil- 
ity ; between firmness and obstinacy ; between conscientious- 
ness and squeamishness. But we have not been placed in. 
this world merely to have an easy time; therefore we need 
the discipline of hard thinking and difficult tasks. 


CHAPTER XIII 


VI. MAN’S CHIEF DUTIES (continued). 


4. DuTIES TO ONE’S FELLOWMEN. 
(1) General relations. 


a. / Love: 


Among the various kinds of Christian love may be men- 
tioned the following, all of which the true Christian will 
try to develop to the utmost: (a) Neighbor love — love to 
every one who is in need, whether near or far, kindred or 
stranger, of the same social class or of another, of the same. 
race or another (the parable of the Good Samaritan) ; (b) 
Patriotic love —love of country, but not Chauvinism; (c) 
Philanthropic love — love of the genus homo, of humanity 
for its own sake; (d) Love for enemies — often a difficult 
task, but peculiarly Christian; (e) Graces flowing from 
Christian love: politeness, appreciation, affability, courtesy. 


b. Justice. 

This means equity among men, each receiving his due 
as nearly as possible. It is perfectly consistent with love. 
Indeed, it is plain that, if all men were actuated by true 
Christian love, no inequalities of an unjust character would 
exist in society. Imagine how this would help to Edenize 
the world. So we plead for equity and justice, such as the 
Bible and the Christian system require and inculcate, in the 
following relations of life: (a) Among men in general; 
(b) In the industrial or economic sphere; (c) In civic life 


Practical Ethics 12) 


among both officials and citizens. Let Christian love and 
justice be tried out and see the result. 


(2) Specific relations. 
a. The family. 


Marriage is a divine institution (Gen. 1:27; 2:18, 21- 
24); and it was to be monogamous marriage, not sexual 
promiscuity (cf. Matt. 19: 3-9; Mark 10: 2-12). In choos- 
ing a partner for life, care should be taken. Conjugal love 
need not be blind. It is better to fall in love with a good 
character than with merely a pretty face and a graceful 
physical form. Yet marriage should be founded on pure 
sexual love, involving both soul and body. 


There is something peculiar about hymeneal love which 
distinguishes it from all other kinds of love, like friendship, 
love of children, love of parents, Platonic love, etc. For 
this reason such love can truly exist between one man and 
one woman only. This is the natural basis of conjugal 
love, and agrees with the teaching of the Bible. 

Since all men and women are humanly frail, there is al- 
ways need that married couples should bear patiently with 
each other. They must not expect each other to be angelic 
in disposition. The marriage relation sometimes imposes 
peculiar trials and difficult responsibilities. If these mat- 
ters are borne in mind and each party exercises proper self- 
‘control, marriage can be made a success. As a certain wag 
has put it, it is possible “to be happy though married.” 


So far as regards the relation of parents and children, 
it is pertinent to say that it is in accordance with the divine 
order for children to come into the home (Gen. 1:28). To 
prevent it would be to disobey the divine command and 
frustrate the divine purpose. God surely does not approve 
of race suicide. 


lz A Manual of Christian Ethics 


Children having come into the hone, it is the duty of 
parents to care for them, to train them in the way of God’s 
purpose and commandments. “Train up a child in the way 
he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart there- 
from” (Prov. 22:6). Fathers should not provoke their 
children to anger (Eph. 6:4); yet they should kindly and 
firmly insist on obedience. Anarchy in the home leads to 
anarchy in the school, the State, and the government of God. 


The duties of children to parents are plainly taught in 
God’s Word. They are to honor them (Ex. 20:12) and 
obey them (Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20). As parents should care 
for their children when they are young and dependent, so 
children should care for their parents in their old age. The 
time never comes when children should not honor father 
and mother. 


b. The social organism. 


Man was created a social being. There never was a time 
when it was “good for man to be alone.” Any kind of ascet- 
icism or monasticism that leads men and women to sepa- 
rate themselves from the social organism is contrary to the 
ethical teaching of the Bible. A man cannot find God in 
a hermitage when he ought to be mingling with his fellow- 
men in the way of fellowship and service. ‘The life of the 
anchorite is selfish; therefore contrary to the very prin- 
ciples of Christianity. Christ identifies Himself with the 
people. What we do for them, He says we do for Him 
(Matt. 25: 40,45. While it is not accurate to speak of “the 
social gospel,” it is important to recognize the social element 
im the gospel — yes, and to practice it, too. 


G..dbbes state: 
The State is a divine institution. The Bible always rec- 
ognizes government. It does not place the divine endorse- 


Practical Ethics 123 


ment on any particular form of government; but it does 
teach just what nature and reason teach — that human so- 
ciety cannot exist in a state of anarchy. 


That being so, it follows that people should be obedient 
to the government under which they live, provided it does 
not command anything directly contrary to the divine order. 
Hence Christ said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are 
Caesar’s.”’ The apostles also enjoined upon Christians to 
‘be stbject»to the powers’ that bet (Roms 13 13) Titus: 3:1, 
1 Pet. 2: 13-17). Christian people should not be rebellious 
and revolutionary. There may, however, be extreme cir- 
cumstances in which they “ought to obey God rather than 
man” (Acts 5:29). Even then it does not mean that they 
are to become seditious. The motto of citizens and rulers 
in a country like ours should be, “Liberty regulated by law.” 


(eee nes cour, 


(a) Membership therein obligatory. 


Since the Church is a divine institution (Matt. 16:18; 
Pelee th 226) 5525-29 7 CACS 7 Poouee0 neo. lLCor: 
11:22), it surely must follow that every one should be a 
member thereof. This does not mean that people must join 
the Church in order to be saved, but that they will join the 
Church when they are saved. Then they will desire to have 
fellowship in some organization of believers in order to 
further the cause of religion. It is a false individualism 
which declares that membership in some Christian com- 
munion is not necessary in order to be a Christian. With- 
out questioning motives, he surely would be a poor sort of 
a Christian who tried to be one all alone. What reason 
that would stand in the judgment day could he give for re- 
fusing to ally himself with his fellow-believers in the work 
of the Lord? 


124 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


(b) Duties of lay members. 


This section might be indefinitely amplified, but we can 
give only the outline, hoping it will be suggestive of further 
thought: Christians should attend upon the means of grace 
in the Church regularly (Ps. 122:1, 9; Heb. 1:25), give 
God glad and spiritual worship; give the Church proper 
financial support (“according as the Lord has prospered 
you”); they should live circumspectly before the world in 
order to commend the Church as a divine institution. 


c. Duties of ministers. 


They should be leaders of the flock; wise and tender 
under-shepherds; but should not seek to be “ecclesiastical 
bosses.” 


They should be the expert workmen of the Church. It 
is their specialty. They have been trained for this very 
purpose. This fact implies great responsibility, and con- 
fers a great privilege. Let them make themselves efficient 
and adept. 


They should be “ensamples to the flock.” While, it is 
true, no merely human being can be a perfect example, yet 
it is incumbent upon ministers of the gospel to live accord- 
ing to the principles of the gospel. If they do not, they 
will thwart the very purpose of the gospel of Christ. 


They should be faithful pastors. “A house-going pastor 
makes a church-going people,’ said some one. Ministers 
should not dislike pastoral work. It is not a waste of 
time to visit the people of the parish, if the work is done 
judicially and as economically of time as possible. 

Ministers should be good preachers. First, they should 
have the gospel in their hearts; then they should use every 
available means to train themselves in the fine art of pre- 


Practical Ethics 125 


senting it to the people forcefully and attractively. A good 
teacher in the art of public speaking will be able to correct 
certain natural faults that would otherwise greatly mar 
many a man’s manner of public address. 

As to the contents of the preaching, no better advice can 
be given than that of the apostle, “Preach the Word” (2 
Tim. 4:2). Not human speculation. “I am not ashamed 
of the gospel; for it is the power of God unto salvation to 
every one that believeth” (Rom. 1:16). “And I, brethren, 
when I came unto you,” etc. (1 Cor. 2: 1-5; read the whole 
passage). The Word of God, the gospel of Christ, is the 
perennial theme for the preacher. It will furnish him with 
constant and ever-varied subjects for pulpit treatment. A 
prayerful, diligent and scholarly study of the Bible will pre- 
vent any minister from becoming monotonous and prosy as 
well as unspiritual, no matter how long a pastorate he may 
have. “Treasures new and old” are ever to be found there- 
in. And, moreover, God’s Word will not return unto Him 
void. 

Nor does the foregoing imply that the minister should 
not be a wide student and reader; that he should not be 
versed, so far as other duties will permit, in science, liter- 
ature and philosophy; in short, in all useful learning. How- 
ever, all these studies should be subservient to the gospel. 
They should not be used didactically or pedantically, but 
simply to illustrate and enforce gospel truth. The Word 
of God is the main river; all other learning constitutes only 
the contributing streams to help “to make glad the city of 
God.” If during the week the minister makes excursions 
up some of these tributaries, he should come back in the 
preparation and delivery of his sermon to the main river 
of revealed truth, bringing with him such treasures as he 
may have gathered. The sole use of erudition for the 


126 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


preacher is to enable him to preach the gospel more effec- 
tively. With him knowledge and culture are means, not 
ends. Therefore he should make a homiletic use of all his 
acquisitions. 


“Preach the Word.” With all the preacher’s general 
and special studies, his best homiletic method is to select 
his texts and themes from a direct study of the Bible, and 
not from other sources. “What shall 1 preach next Sun- 
day?” is the minister’s ever-recurring question at the begin- 
ning of the week. Some ministers make a mistake by seek- 
ing for texts and subjects in all sorts of literature; some- 
times even by consulting books of sermons and sermon- 
outlines. That, we feel impelled to say, is not the best way, 
not even a good way. It is better to read the Bible itself 
for texts and themes, especially when one is looking for 
the subject-matter of sermons. Every minister should be 
engaged at all times in a systematic study of the Bible or 
some portion of it. Such a method will furnish him with 
texts without number, so that he will never need to “run 
out” of material. In preaching on free texts a good method 
at times may be to read the Bible wherever one feels 1m- 
pelled to open it, not in a haphazard way, but with thought 
and purpose; then read it carefully, chapter by chapter, 
until the soul becomes filled with the glory of its message. 
Ere he is aware, he has found his text for the next Sun- 
day; has grasped it, too, in its contextual connection, and 
thus is inspired with the fulness and largeness of its truth; 
then he should work it up into an outline that is all his own, 
not a borrowed one. One virtue of this plan for free texts 
is that it will lend variety to the minister’s selection of sub- 
jects, and will save him from running into ruts. Another 
is that it will keep him a Biblical preacher. 


Practical Ethics 127 


And it is surprising, and most encouraging, too, to find 
how readily the profoundest doctrines of the gospel can be 
simplified, and brought to the comprehension of the com- 
mon people. It is not a sign of true and profound culture 
for a preacher to be abstruse — “too deep,” as the saying 
is. The deepest culture is that which is able to take the 
profound subjects of the gospel and make them luminous 
and transparent. 


And preaching need not be juvenile and rudimentary 
in order to be clear. The great vital themes of the gospel 
are capable of simple treatment, if ministers will devoutly 
and unselfishly study to master the fine art of putting things 
lucidly in the vernacular. Do not try to be profound and 
erudite; try, rather, to be understood by all. Much so- 
called “deep” preaching is only obscure; often verbose and 
bombastic. Murky water always looks deep, though it may 
be very shallow. The preacher should not only use plain 
and simple language, but should cultivate the short sentence 
and the simple construction. Much so-called “hard read- 
ing’ is so because the writers have formed the habit of using 
long and complex sentences that keep the mind on a con- 
stant strain. Terseness is a fine art; let us cultivate it. 


In the true sense, preaching should always be ethical. 
Christ came to save His people from their sins, and salva- 
tion always means rescue from sin, cleansing from its pol- 
lution, and restoration to true righteousness. We cannot 
have too much ethical preaching of this kind, which insists 
that the only fountain of the truly moral life is redemption 
and regeneration. 


There is great need today of the positive note in preach- 
ing. If aman has no real message for the world, he would 
better not enter the ministry. The pulpit that sends forth 


128 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


an uncertain sound, or that expresses doubt about this and 
that and the other, will not build up the Church nor win 
men to Christ. All the great soul-winners and church- 
builders have been positive preachers. One of the best ways 
to preach the gospel is simply to take it for granted, and 
apply it as a positive panacea for the ills of humanity, with- 
out assuming the apologetic attitude at all. A preacher will 
not do the greatest amount of good by making constant 
mention of the negative critics, and exploiting the doubts 
they have raised about the Bible, even though he tries to 
refute them. These critical positions are known only to 
the learned few, anyway, and so ordinarily the preacher has 
no call to give them “free advertisement.” While it is well 
for him to be posted on these critical problems, his main 
use for them will be in dealing privately with the doubts of 
the scholarly people in his parish and community. Before 
most audiences it is best to preach Christ and His gospel 
in a positive way as the only hope for man. 


And what a field there is for positive preaching! Take 
the Christian virtue of faith — faith in God and in Christ 
—and how much inspiration there is in showing how good, 
strong, comforting and rational an act of the soul it is! In 
the same way the salutary power of the Christian hope can 
be proclaimed — the “hope that maketh not ashamed.” So 
all the Christian graces and virtues can be treated in a pos- 
itive way that is most bracing and uplifting. 


The preacher must at times “cry aloud and spare not,” 
as the prophet enjoins; but he should avoid the other ex- 
treme — that of constantly excoriating the sins and weak- 
nesses of the people. It is a pity for any minister to gain 
a reputation of being a “scolding” preacher. Sometimes, 
yes, often, it would be well for him to remember the proph- 


Practical Ethics 129 


et’s injunction: “Comfort ye my people; speak comfort- 
ably unto Jerusalem.” 


There is another way in which the true minister proves 
himself a valuable helper to his people. The art of expres- 
sion is a fine art. Many parishioners do not possess it; 
they have been too busy with the toil of life to cultivate it. 
Yet in their hearts, far down in the deeps of their sub- 
consciousness, there are thoughts and aspirations that are 
struggling for expression. 


Now, here is the capable minister’s opportunity. He 
studies religious problems and experiences; they are his 
specialty; to deal with them wisely and thoroughly — that 
has been the chief object of all his theological training. So, 
during the week he himself struggles with those thoughts, 
and by and by, he is able to put them into choice and tell- 
ing phrases, and set them out like clear-cut cameos before 
his auditors, thus proving himself a true “master of assem- 
blies.” With grateful hearts, perhaps often with tear- 
dimmed eyes, they will say to him, “We have often thought 
of the very things you presented so clearly, but we couldn’t 
express them; you have expressed them for us, and we 
thank you for the great help you have afforded us.” Oh! 
what an opportunity for the preacher! No wonder the 
Holy Spirit inspired the maxim: “A word fitly spoken is 
like apples of gold in a network of silver” (Prov. 25:11). 
“And further, because the Preacher was wise, he still taught 
the people knowledge; yea, he pondered, and sought out, 
and set in order many proverbs. The Preacher sought to 
find out acceptable words, and that which was written was 
uprightly, even the words of truth” (Eccl. 12:9, 10). 


(d) The relation of Church and State. 


We are persuaded that our American principle is the 


130 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


right one —the separation of the Church and the State. 
Where religion is free, it flourishes best. In such circum- 
stances, too, is it most apt to be pure. Here in America no 
one needs to be a Christian unless he freely chooses to be 
one; and surely that principle makes for sincerity and spir- 
ituality. 

There are points, however, at which the two institutions 
must function in harmony. For example, the people of the 
Church may proclaim the principles of public, civic and 
national righteousness, and may warn against sin, just as 
the prophets and apostles did of old. “Righteousness ex- 
alteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” 
Christian people are also interested in the general civic, 
social and ethical welfare of the people in general. 


Again, as citizens of the government, Christian people 
should exercise the right of suffrage, should pay their just 
taxes, should hold office when duty requires, and should 
perform all other obligations of citizenship in a republic. 
It is no mark of saintliness or the heavenly mind to remain 
away from the polls on election day. 


On the other hand, the government should protect the 
Church in its property rights, just as it should secure the 
titles of other citizens and institutions. The rights of wor- 
ship without molestation should also be guaranteed by the 
State. Tax-supported schools should teach nothing that is 
subversive of the sincere and sacred beliefs of its loyal and 
upright citizens. 


But one thing should ever be remembered in this land. 
Religion should be free. No one should be compelled to 
attend church service or to be religious. Of course, we are 
referring now to adult citizens and their relation to the 
government. We believe that the vast majority of the 


Practical Ethics 131 


Christian citizens of our country are determinedly in favor 
of the present separation of the Church and the State. 


(e) The Church militant and the Church triumphant. 


It is a comfort to know that the battle for every true 
church member will end in victory. There may be people 
who profess to believe that the struggle with sin and misery 
will continue forever; but it is hard to think that they are 
really in earnest. It would be an intolerable thought. No; 
it is far better to believe that “Christ hath brought life and 
immortality to light through the gospel.” To know that 
“there remaineth a rest for the people of God” is a comfort 
to many weary toilers. “A house not made with hands, 
eternal in the heavens,” surely has its attractions for people 
who have been restored to the normal state of mind by the 
gospel of Christ. To know that we “are the children of 
God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint- 
heirs with Jesus Christ,” is surely a powerful, pure and in- 
spiring incentive to trust God and to serve Him with loyal 
devotion. 


Of faithful members of the Church militant it may be 
said that, at death, they simply transfer their membership 
to the Church triumphant, to the General Assembly and 
Church of the First-born in heaven. 


This concludes our study of Christian Ethics, as far as 
our purpose justifies us in developing it. Many subjects, 
especially in Practical Ethics, are capable of almost indefi- 
nite expansion; but in this treatise our aim has been to 
make the discussions suggestive rather than exhaustive. 
The unity of the system lies in these patent facts: that the 
ethical is grounded in the nature, will and personality of 


132 A Manual of Christian Ethics 


God; that this personal God, through His inspired Word, 
reveals to man His love and grace in His incarnate Son, our 
Redeemer and Lord; that through faith in Christ and His 
redemption, applied by the Holy Spirit, the glorious merit 
and righteousness of the Saviour are imputed to the be- 
liever, and the divine ethical power and grace are implanted 
in his innermost character, transfiguring it with ethical po- 
tency; and that this “new creation,” from its very nature, 
bears the fruitage of a sincere and well-ordered life before 
God and man. We know of no other ultimate ethical 
ground; no other method of receiving ethical salvation; 
no other way of realizing the true ethical ideal and destiny. 


A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 


ApvaM, D. S.—A Handbook of Christian Ethics. 
ALEXANDER, A. B. D.—Christiantty and Ethics. 
Davipson, W. L.—Christian Ethics. 

D’Arcy, C. F.—Christian Ethics and Modern Thought. 
Dorner, J. A~—A System of Christian Ethics. 

GARDNER, C. S.—The Ethics of Jesus and Social Progress. 
Grecory, D. S.—Christian Ethics. 

Haas, J. A. W.—Freedom and Christian Conduct: An Ethic. 
HAERING, T.—Ethics of the Christian Life. 

Har.ess, C. A——A System of Christian Ethics. 
Kenprick, A. C.—The Moral Conflict of Christianity. 


LutTHarpt, C. E.—History of Christian Ethics; Moral 
Truths of Christianity; Kompendium der Theologi- 
schen Ethik. 


MaAcKINToscH, R.—Christianity and Sin. 

MARTENSEN, A.—Christian Ethics (three volumes). 

Murray, J. C—A Handbook of Christian Ethics. 

Rosins, H. E.—The Ethics of the Christian Life. 

Roop, H. U.—Christian Ethics, or the Science of Christian 
Living. 

Sartorius, E.—The Doctrine of Divine Love. 

SmytH, N.—Christian Ethics. 

STALKER, J.—The Ethics of Jesus; Imago Christt. 

StronG, T. B.—Bampton Lectures on Christian Ethics. 

WEIDNER, R. F.—Christian Ethics (based on Martensen). 

WuttkeE, A.—Christian Ethics. 


PAULI 


Other timely volumes by the same author 


BOPUEETAUEDEDORTRAUDOTST VERTED ARETE EUR UE ET PEGE ETE EEC SEOU EE LOBEEEEDEREDRERUEEEEUTEE LUT EED SEBO DOERT ORCA T EAC TTO TEE DD OODLE DCT TT HACE TES PUPA OSSD EUAOOTTDUODPE HDHD DUOSB EDA BOPATEROPATEDEDIOO SEED POSE ECHOUROOIONOET OORT SPERESOOTSD HOPE ROU REED 


THE DOCTRINES OF MODERNISM 


A keen analysis of its beliefs and misbeliefs, showing its wide 
departures from full-toned Christianity and the faith of the Evan- 
gelical Church. 

Price, paper cover, 50 cents. 


A SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE 


Fourth edition. Well adapted as a college and seminary text- 
book; also profitable for general reading. 


Price, cloth, $1.75. 


THE PROBLEM OF ORIGINS 


Whence came the universe? Whence came life and species? 
Whence came man? 


In this new and opportune volume, Dr. Keyser comes to real grips 
with one of the livest issues of the day — the issue between creation 
and evolution. If you are weary of mist and uncertainty, and de- 
sire lucidity, read this volume by one who thinks his subject through 
before he goes to the printer. 


Price, net $2.00. 


A SYSTEM OF NATURAL THEISM 


In this compact and able volume... the author has given us 
anew a strong and reassuring statement of the grounds of theistic 
and Christian belief. 

Full cloth, net $1.00 


THE RATIONAL TEST 


The chief Biblical doctrines shown to be reasonable and satis- 
fying. , 
Price, 75 cents. 


“This is by all odds the best reasoned book on the cardinal doc- 
trines of the Christian religion that we have read for many a day.” 


TYSOPMUTIROESEOEREPEUUUOUYEREOOSS 


Ai SUOUTUOUOOUUOOUAUUNSUOCOEUOEOEUUOEAEOUEUUASEEEUGEEAP UAE 


Other timely volumes by the same author 


CUCU CUCU CCC CUCU 


A SYSTEM OF GENERAL ETHICS 


A TIMELY BOOK. 
‘Up-to-date,” “Scientific,” “Safe,” “Sound,” ‘Clear,’ 
“Strikingly persuasive.” 


This book by Dr. Keyser teaches the right kind of morality, the 
only kind that will stand the acid test of these crucial times. It is 
stalwart, scientific, based on sound philosophical principles, and emi- 
nently timely and practical. 


Cloth, 280 pages; price $1.75. 


MAN’S FIRST DISOBEDIENCE 
A constructive interpretation and positive defense of the histor- 
icity of the Biblical account of the Fall of Man. Price, $1.00. 
“A book for the times.”—Serving and Waiting, Philadelphia, Pa. 


A HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGY 
An outline of the psychical teaching of the Bible, correlated with 
the latest conclusions of science. 
35 cents per copy; 3 for $1.00. 
“This book was developed, and is used in the author’s classroom. 


The author renders a distinct service by evaluating the various psy- 
chological theories and showing their relation to Biblical teaching.” 


THE CONFLICT OF FUNDAMENTALISM 
AND MODERNISM 


A tract for the times. 30 cents per copy. 


“The chief purpose of the author has been to set forth as accu- 
rately as possible the real issue and crisis in the Christian Church 
today, and to draw the picture so clearly that the layman, as well as 
the person who is theologically trained, may see just what the con- 
troversy is about.” 


ULURUUNDLVAUOVUSOCUOGSOOUGEASEU COG LAUU UEC 








o& 


Be 











— ore 


Date Due 


) s 


ae 


sage 

a 
>| 

ex 
3 ow 


| 
F 





; 


| 


+ 


{ 
‘ 


ae ee oy es 


a 
Ly 


Toes > 
aire, 


nee alien 





artes 


t 


Shirt sear 
eh bt 


sony 


CNS Re AeA et Bet oe ore er 


ie Re 
. tah 


<h 


ro 
oot 


eet Mtb Se 


13s 


ha ney nr 
ys ct 
= . 
Di 
om 
i 


SPS 

say 
Lat 

rags 

EES Pea toes 


He 


4 she) 
+> 
ay 


he 


ae 8g Meee ne ree 


mb he. 
a 
errata 


iy 


=it 
yr 
r 


aie 


coon 


Se iieeeeasetes 

Fat Ree ED oes eee et 
Sih amcieeteee pee 
ut fen 


EES 
44 


hy 


TO 


2 01001 04 


4354) 





